A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[Yink]

Yes, the issues seems to be that you don't use or maybe understand logic and reason, and simply want to argue based on your personal beliefs and understandings, then give up because that never leads anywhere and say it was my fault. Its cool though, thats how some people do it.

Alright, I read this thread here and there, and I'm sorry for looking past everything but, I don't think it was really appropriate of you to say this. You're saying they don't see logic and reason even though they're seeing it their own way? Why? Just because the world doesn't see how you see it doesn't mean they're totally incorrect.

And arguing based on personal beliefs goes hand in hand with debating. I'd like to think most of the people in this thread are debating, if they're not then I've been living under a rock and need to get out more, yeah? I don't see them giving up either. "That's how some people do it" because it's a feasible reason to do so.

 

[Conviction]

Assuming you mean the timer is the limit on camping.

The answer is simple. Timers keep tournaments from running too long. Or at least that's how I've seen it and have been told by others.

Also you still misunderstand Twinkie's post


Summing up, yes both aren't broken.

 

[Cassio]

Assuming you mean the timer is the limit on camping.

The answer is simple. Timers keep tournaments from running too long. Or at least that's how I've seen it and have been told by others.

Also you still misunderstand Twinkie's post


Summing up, yes both aren't broken.

I agree with all of this post. Except the strikeout part, lol. It seems we have the same interpretation now.

 

[Conviction]

Then if we are following each other, why do we need a LGL?

The timer would handle it as an extreme camping situation. While just like camping both are beatable.

I told Twinkie to clarify his post. I understand it, but I'm done trying to scapegoat for him.

 

[Ripple]

Twinkie, MK would be untouchable for 1656 frames exactly if no down b was used.

 

[Conviction]

Well Damn.

 

[Cassio]

It comes down to if we believe the issues planking creates warrant an lgl. Actually its the side conversation ghostbone and I have been having. Im fine with that disagreement for now since its a more subjective matter.

Twinkie is trying to make an objective case for why lgls are bad. His main point is that a character can lose through an lgl while not planking.

My retort is that a character can lose via timeout while not camping. In the end it doesnt matter because victory through timeouts and lgl turn into valid conditions we find acceptable in their own right. Its not something that simply attempts to stop or punish camping/planking but rather the issues they create.

If my interpretation of his main point is incorrect, feel free to sum it up in a sentence or two.

 

[WindMajor]

My post can't be any clearer than that, Iblis.

LGLs are as useful as ATLs. That was my point back in that post I linked him to from Grim's thread. My last post made here that clear, but Cassio didn't bother to answer the "Tell me..." parts like I challenged him to do earlier, so he wouldn't know that.

Cassio also failed to understand that assuming that all ledge grabs is bad planking, he's being unfair because he's denying the existence of ledge use that isn't planking. He's also ignoring the fact that you can't establish "too much stalling", without first establishing how much time is too much time going to stalling, and then finding a tool to measure how much stalling was actually going on. He doesn't realize that an LGL is an indirect way of addressing planking/stalling on the ledge, and the reason why we use it is because there's no direct way of addressing it, so we're using the next best thing.

There's no point in clarifying anything for Cassio because he's going to turn a blind eye to it. He's going to respond with, "Just add it as a win condition, we've done that before, we can do it again!" for a third time, without realizing that the win condition is broken in itself, therefore, it can't be a win condition unless you want to make a mockery of the ruleset.






Edit: Ninja'd by Cassio. Timers aren't put with camping in mind. Timers are put to simply put so the match can end in a time frame that TOs can manage. What actually happens on the screen has nothing to do with the inclusion of a timer.

Twinkie, MK would be untouchable for 1656 frames exactly if no down b was used.

27.6 seconds. Marvelous.

 

[Cassio]

Apparently it wasnt clear, but I agree completely that none of those questions can be answered, and that someone can indeed be timed out without attempting to stall. Which is why Ive been completely confused as to why its been repeated and Ive been told I dont understand it while having the same opinion as you, rofl. Yes, it is completely pointless to try and tell the difference between "good" and "bad" planking. This isnt the disagreement we have which is why I ignored it after I thought this was understood.

Our disagreement comes on whether or not treating all ledge grabs as the same is "fair". Im not denying that ledge grab use can be 'good', Im saying if both players are aware that they can win or lose from ledge grabs then theres nothing inherently unfair about it. The only reason it would be unfair is if we subjectively determine that its unfair. You havent given a single reason as to why treating all ledge grabs the same is objectively unfair. imo this is the main point you are not understanding. Also understand that Im neither saying its fair or unfair, Im saying that its the community that determines this when they determine whether or not to use an lgl.

In regards to timers, I once read a thread linked in some "history of smash thread" about the the item debate that occured way back when. Make a good guess as to why a timer did not exist before item removal but did afterwards .

 

[Ghostbone]

Our disagreement comes on whether or not treating all ledge grabs as the same is "fair". Im not denying that ledge grab use can be 'good', Im saying if both players are aware that they can win or lose from ledge grabs then theres nothing inherently unfair about it. The only reason it would be unfair is if we subjectively determine that its unfair. You havent given a single reason as to why treating all ledge grabs the same is objectively unfair. imo this is the main point you are not understanding. Also understand that Im neither saying its fair or unfair, Im saying that its the community that determines this when they determine whether or not to use an lgl.

Well, it's 'unfair' because it's not necessary to have a competitive game, and doesn't make it more competitive, and is not a natural part of the game.
Unlike the timer, which is natural part of the game. (percentage isn't, but we've gone over this, the game is uncompetitive without the victor being determined by percent as well as stock)

Obviously if both players know about it beforehand, then it's not unfair in the sense that it affects them equally.
But that doesn't mean it isn't still a dumb rule, if you legalise Temple, it's still 'fair' in the same sense a LGL is 'fair'

In regards to timers, I once read a thread linked in some "history of smash thread" about the the item debate that occured way back when. Make a good guess as to why a timer did not exist before item removal but did afterwards .

Because they were still working out what rules they needed.
Stage selection was on random for the longest time (didn't it only change after Brawl came out?), stages like temple were originally legal, and some like Peach's Castle stayed legal for quite a while.

I don't think the addition of the timer was due to items being turned off, and even if it was, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Cassio]

Well, it's 'unfair' because it's not necessary to have a competitive game, and doesn't make it more competitive, and is not a natural part of the game.
Unlike the timer, which is natural part of the game. (percentage isn't, but we've gone over this, the game is uncompetitive without the victor being determined by percent as well as stock)

Necessity becomes pseudo-subjective and a painful tangent for now. As I said to iblis for now its just best to agree to diagree. Also sudden death isnt uncompetitive, its just stupid.

Obviously if both players know about it beforehand, then it's not unfair in the sense that it affects them equally.
But that doesn't mean it isn't still a dumb rule, if you legalise Temple, it's still 'fair' in the same sense a LGL is 'fair'

Somewhat agree. Saying the rule being "dumb" is subjective and something the community determines as a whole, but its not wrong for you to believe its dumb.

Because they were still working out what rules they needed.
Stage selection was on random for the longest time (didn't it only change after Brawl came out?), stages like temple were originally legal, and some like Peach's Castle stayed legal for quite a while.

I don't think the addition of the timer was due to items being turned off, and even if it was, there's nothing wrong with that.

It was a direct result. But otherwise I agree.

 

[Tommy_G]

But that doesn't mean it isn't still a dumb rule, if you legalise Temple, it's still 'fair' in the same sense not having a LGL is 'fair'

Fixed for you. They both allow the other player to run away.

 

[Judo777]

If other non MK's can't reliably plank close to everyone then its not that comparable to MK. If not having a LGL makes certain MU's unwinnable at a certain point (aka losing the lead) like perhaps Falco or IC's vs GW it doesn't necessarily mean it should be removed.

After a certain point (once she gets the lead) if Sheik gets underneathe a platform and pulls out the chain Ganondork can literally NEVER touch her for the remainder of the match. DOes that mean we should limit the chain because its EXTREMELY centralizing in one MU? I don't think so.

I can tell you this for sure, GW cannot reliably plank Sheik, Snake, Toon Link (probably) and Pit cannot reliably plank Sheik, Snake, GW, and probably TL again. Therefore its really not that detrimental.

 

[Ghostbone]

Fixed for you. They both allow the other player to run away.

Ignoring how painfully oblivious you are to the point, you can't run away while planking, you stay in the same spot

Necessity becomes pseudo-subjective and a painful tangent for now. As I said to iblis for now its just best to agree to diagree. Also sudden death isnt uncompetitive, its just stupid.

Sudden death is competitive in the same way tossing a coin is competitive, it's basically just luck.

It was a direct result. But otherwise I agree.

Really? Evidence? Just seems unlikely they'd put in a timer just because items were turned off. (and even with items, a timer still isn't a bad idea)

 

[Tommy_G]

Ignoring how painfully oblivious you are to the point, you can't run away while planking, you stay in the same spot

Troll, you know what I'm trying to say.

 

[Battousai780]

This debate is going on because some people are gigantic newbs who clearly don't understand the first thing of Brawl; and for some reason, think their opinion matters or makes any sense.

 

[The calm tyrant...]

Truth, you're truly a hero for how much you can stand. Read all of your posts as well, good reads all around.