Wobbling Compromise

[KrazyKnux]

Rest is similar to Wobbling because they both usually guarantee a KO when utilized successfully.

However I do see your point. A more accurate comparison might be sheik's chaingrabbing, which imo is almost as "cheap" and combos into any one of her many KO moves.

EDIT: lol sheik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpbCBT1TGdg

Yeah I agree with that. I think people who want to ban wobbling should also want to ban sheik's chain grab. As for the rest, I was just thinking that since DI affects how successful the rest is (DI it away at high percents and you can come back quick to punish it, or DI it correctly at low percents and possibly survive) then it isn't quite as comparable (although I can see how one could make it for lack of a better comparison) as DI won't help you if you're getting wobbled.

 

[KrazyKnux]

However, after reading through this thread, it's obvious right now that it should just be up to the TO's discretion, as neither side is really giving in, lol.

 

[KrazyKnux]

Could it be....4 in a row??

ding ding ding! KrazyKnux is a winner!

 

[KrazyKnux]

LOL wow 5 in a row. Computer lag ftl, my bad XD.

edit: So many ducks in this thread...this is just awkward now lol. And it turns out this forum really needs a delete button.

 

[SDC]

Krazyknux = Ultrabanned

 

[theunabletable]

Since STILL no one has answered this question, I'll ask again.

Why would we ban a tactic that isn't overcentralizing?

 

[Charlesz]

bECAUSE IT is not fashionable to wobble.

 

[SDC]

What he was trying to say:
Why would we even ban Wobbling in the first place? What's really wrong with that technique???

Good question. I have yet to see a convincing argument for Wobbling's ban.

 

[KrazyKnux]

Peer pressure?

If I were TOing a tournament of 200 expected people and 150 said they weren't coming if I didn't ban Jigglypuff, and the other 50 were only coming if Jigglypuff is allowed. I'd probably have to go ahead and just ban Jigglypuff.

 

[SDC]

Peer pressure?

If I were TOing a tournament of 200 expected people and 150 said they weren't coming if I didn't ban Jigglypuff, and the other 50 were only coming if Jigglypuff is allowed. I'd probably have to go ahead and just ban Jigglypuff.

Those 150 people are wrong. Screw them. lol

I'd rather play with 50 intelligent, rational, open-minded players who don't mind taking on a new challenge, instead of with 150 children who rage after their third loss and demand that what they can't figure out shouldn't be legal.

 

[Zone]

Most of you are stupid. I'm only going to accept that it is not overcentralizing and it does not make the IC's the most broke character. Almost everyone's analogies suck ****. Zone, you are a terrible devil's advocate. For your very first counter argument you use Shiek's d-throw which REQUIRES you to have the TV on and see their reaction. That is why I bring up the TV being off; both players could eat a sandwich with the TV off during a wobble. Shucking fit, the wobbler could beat off during it.

you have still failed to give me a valid reason why it should be banned.

DID I SAY SHIEK DOWN THROW CAN BE DONE WITH THE T.V. OFF? for ****s sake read please. I said shiek's down throw chaingrab is guaranteed, even though you need to react. So is wobbling. SO please learn to read.

me addressing the T.V. thing was asking if you were complaining cuz you didn't have to read their DI' reaction. and I'm just saying who cares if you don't have to react? whether you need to react or not. Both are guaranteed.

all I was saying is how easy it is to execute wobbling makes no valid argument for it's legitimacy.

EDIT: A guarantee is a guarantee vro, Doesn't matter if you can do it with the t.v. off or not.

 

[BigD!!!]

somebody responded to me and said something about fox's wall infinite; that doesnt work because you can smash DI out of it

maybe there are secrets to the freeze glitch i dont understand, but if popo and nana are separated then A: you cant control nana and make her grab, and B: you cant hit them with a forward b while nana throws at the same time. plus, if they freeze glitch you while youre up a stock, you can automatically win if they actually try to hit you with a lot of moves and you smash DI up enough to where they cant regrab you. if what peef describes happens, ice climber players should lose because they are pathetic enough to hit a frozen character with one of 2 moves that ends the game.

i dont really care whether wobbling is legal or not, i just think that more of the pro wobbling arguers are overly arrogant while still having pretty ****ty arguments so i like to debate them, but this thread moves way too fast so its not working too well

 

[Taj278]

The freeze glitch doesn't require Popo to hit the target in order for the freeze glitch to work. It is as simple as executing a forward B with Popo as Nana is doing any throw with the correct timing.

 

[PEEF!]

some secrets of the freeze glitch: the ic player can do constant dthrows and bthrows to rack up damage, di and smash di is futile. only the ic forward and uthrow breaks them out of the freeze, and NOTHING (besides samus' screw attack lol) can break someone out of the freeze glitch after they are "double frozen/titanic'd" with an ice move in addition to the original freeze. broken and detramental beyond belief.

the pro-wobblers are arrogant, because it is easy to be arrogant when every rational and objective fact points towards its legalization. even that statement sounded arrogant, but its true. the only arguments against it are based on either worthless facts (you can turn the tv off...what does that even matter) or personal preference on what one likes to watch or thinks is gay.

i think my compromise fixes all of that, but of course the easiest option is to simply allow wobbling.

 

[Vro]

bigd: hand offs (similar setup to wobble) allow easy freeze glitch access. the potential game failure sounds like a dq if it were ever allowed.

proposed compromises involving the number of a moves in between the grab are dumb. the only accessible proposal would be to ban popo from keeping you in one grab (read: never leaves popo's hands) for more than 10 secs.

 

[Winston]

how is time elapsed any different from counting the number of tilts, besides being way harder to keep track of?

 

[CTL17]

Perhaps pausing should be allowed during a Wobble, but then that means people would want to allow pausing to break any other combo. Blargh.

 

[Lovage]

jesus christ LMFAO

shut the *** up with this "pro-wobblers" and "anti-wobblers" sht

this isnt brawl where we're arguing about metaknight

its just a discussion about ssbm

 

[SDC]

Guys, all these stupid arguments about "pausing", "% limits", "tilt limit", I've been thinking and I've got a NEW CRAZY SUGGESTION:

Howabout we just make Wobbling legal, and
everyone else just has to beat ICYs legitimately? You know, like a real fighting game? =/

 

[PEEF!]

Paraphrasing Vro:

"Compromises involving a number of moves [easily monitored] are dumb. The only reasonable compromise is of course mine that involves a number of seconds [not as easy to monitor]. Duh."

What on earth leads you to believe that seconds are a better standard than number of tilts? No, the better question is what makes your compromise the only reasonable one, particularly when you provide precicely 0 reasons to support your compromise.

We are far enough in the discussion that posts without reason that claim to be the sole bearers of reason should be discarded, and for now on when someone posts one i will simply quote this post.

 

[Vro]

The argument is lame because it's essentially, "IC's are DIFFERENT HARR HARR." But not other characters has 100% control of you with their eyes closed for that amount of time. We've stopped his infinite wallshine from ever lasting that long. Maybe 10 secs it too short, idk. But that's the only thing we can really ban it on instead of something lame like have a witness count the number of A inputs the IC's does. 10 secs, or whatever is decided, is pretty obvious.

**** it if everyone wants it, have it turned on at your tourney.

edit: why are you trolling and belittling anyone who has a different opinion from you? do you think people like you for that? who are you impressing

 

[Cosmo!]

But not other characters has 100% control of you with their eyes closed for that amount of time.

i don't see why this matters

 

[theunabletable]

But not other characters has 100% control of you with their eyes closed for that amount of time.

So what?

EDIT: I probably shouldn't open a page, leave it open without doing anything, then respond to something 15+ minutes after openning the page... makes this post kinda useless since the same response was already given lol...

 

[Vro]

Yes, which is why I explained how lame the premise is.

Honestly after seeing all this discussion, I can see the community is very fine with wobbling since it's within the natural, non-game melting, capabilities of that character. I thought this thread was about how we should look at wobbling rather than "Vote yes on prop 18" because PEEF can rally an issue. I dgaf if the MBR or whatever the community decides is on the issue because ultimately it is always the TO's decision.

I will be the first to sum up the entire "we're now labeled anti-wobblers" POV. We personally don't like it and we personally don't think the IC's require it. It's just a game.

I'm a big fan of these discussions. I just didn't think it'd turn into super serious political bros. Here everyone, the community has settled the argument! Everyone must turn wobbling legal to on at their tournies! -kthxbai swf

 

[darkatma]

can the mods close this thread?
wobbling compromise makes it sound like brawl

LEDGE GRAB LIMIT?!

It's up to the TO, and MBR stance has always been that way. Whether or not you want to go to the tourney is your choice.

 

[PEEF!]

Vro, do you not see the value in a centralized ruleset?

 

[Vro]

Do you not see freedom in rule selection?

 

[pockyD]

You are totally right, and most pro-wobblers have your same view, including myself. Anti-wobbling arguments are not objective and completely irrational, but as it stands now the majority is just owning the IC minority. The idealism of full wobble legality is great, but I don't think it is possible.

However, making lemonade out of lemons with a compromise is far better than simply putting up with the sour taste of a subjective and unfair reality.

I'm not an IC main (and back when I was I never wobbled because I found it was boring and wouldn't get me much further than I got without it)

Consequently, I have nothing to try to salvage gameplay-wise and nothing to gain from 'making lemonade'... my concern is with the integrity of the game. In practice, it makes no difference to me whether wobbling is banned or not; my perspective is rooted in idealism.

By holding the perspective you are, you're no better than the anti-wobbling crowd in terms of merely looking out for your own self-interest

 

[PEEF!]

@Vro: states rights vs central govt. ive always been on the federal govt side of that argument, and apparently i am here too.

if the idealistic side is defensible, then i will join it. however, if there is no hope, then a compromise is the only way it can happen. i have wavered back and forth in this thread on wether asrguing for wobbling being legalized is a waste of time. if its not a waste of time, then i will continue fighting for wobling's legalization as i have.

 

[john!]

^ heh, i actually likened the anti-wobbling side to the centralized government supporters, the "central government" being the mbr, and the libertarian view being the pro-wobblers. but to each his own i guess.

i understand that wobbling is boring and that it feels like crap to be caught in one. but a personal dislike for something is no reason to use the governing body to force your point of view upon others. when's the last time somebody won money because of wobbling? when's the last time wobbling changed the outcome of a tournament to any extent that matters? would the ic's even move up the tier list if wobbling was allowed?

this thread has served the purpose of showing everybody that the only reason a ban on wobbling has gone on for so long is because of personal dislike for it, and because of the relative lack of ic players. those are not sufficient reasons imo. whatever your thoughts on peef as a person, you've gotta respect him for having the guts to confront this issue and set an example for future to's to unban wobbling.

 

[Roneblaster]

its not a compromise then peef, because you get to wobble, and you cant get CP'ed to neutral stages.

sure we have the potential to smash DI out, but even then you can just smash attack us and we still ate 30-40%. what do you lose when you're going to a tournament where wobbling was previously banned?

oh........nothing. seems like the worst compromise i've ever heard of.

there are people who play this game who have no chance of winning tournaments, why are these people ignored?

and john for the last time, MBR has remained silent on wobbling, it isn't banned.

once again, as the most vocal "anti-wobbler" in this thread, dont compromise. ban it or legalize it. compromise just leads to more *****ing and more mal-contents.

 

[john!]

I know the MBR hasn't said anything on wobbling, because they haven't needed to. But if the current trend against wobbling does down, and allowing it becomes the standard, then the only recourse of the anti-wobblers would be to have the MBR ban wobbling everywhere. I was just showing the analogy that I saw.

 

[mastermoo420]

Do you not see freedom in rule selection?

Do you not see the ignorance of your post? Jeez. >_> Might as well play on Hyrule Temple only, huh?

Anyways, I'm with PEEF! on the argument that a centralized ruleset is necessary. If not, might as well throw out everything we have so far that makes the game as balanced as mere mortal players and spectators of a game can make it.

And, if you guys are angry about "infinite" chaingrabs, ICs have their LCG so might as well ban all stages with ledges, too.

In any case, I agree with a lot of what's been said, I'm pro-wobbling, and every post in this topic now seems to be digressive or repetitive, the latter being the product of stubborn people on both sides of the argument.

 

[Oracle]

This is probably the only time I'll ever wish the community was more like the SF community.
It's in the game; deal with it. Is it really that hard to not get grabbed by the ice climbers when both of them are there?

 

[Roneblaster]

are you contributing?

 

[KirbyKaze]

sure we have the potential to smash DI out, but even then you can just smash attack us and we still ate 30-40%.

Escapable throw combos suck.

 

[Roneblaster]

i wish i got a guaranteed 40% everything i got a grab.

 

[Oracle]

I contributed a few pages back but everyone ignored me

 

[KirbyKaze]

**** my computer.

 

[KirbyKaze]

i wish i got a guaranteed 40% everything i got a grab.

*shrug*

Even with it, they're still not very good lol.