A URC members thoughts on the Metaknight Ban

[Gnes]

lol, this is said entirely through the context of a diddy main, so you cant really call it game breaking. Not to mention there werent that many rules in place, and the rules that were put in place could have been much better and more affective. Whether such rules should exist is arguable, but you can't honestly say many rules were created to alleviate the issue aside from a relatively high lgl and even that took a while. Some people asked for more and said they should exist, but it was never really done.

Also through anecdotal evidence it sounds as if youre in a clear minority here. Most pros who've called for MKs ban state they simply think the game will be more entertaining, want to see what the game is like without MK, or believe it might bring back people/keep people in the community; while not believing he breaks the game.

Lol what...Being timed out is universal. In what sentence did I talk about the diddy mk matchup. Exactly what chr. is gonna stop mk from planking/scrooging etc. We've had plenty of rules. As far as planking is concerned, Whobo 1 where two mks exceeded the 90limit on ledge grabs called for reduction on the limit, and the limit has gotten smaller ever since. Winterfest brought up the scrooging rule. Yet despite both of these rules being compiled almost specifically because of mk, it still hasn't changed anything.

And which pros are you talking about, because majority of the ones I talk to have thoughts similar to mine.

10greenfonts

Btw Gnes, once people learn to plank with more characters, it'll make others a ton less viable and it'll show how broken the technique is rather than the character. Pit can scrooge too. It's clearly a stalling technique that should be banned.

I've been saying this for so long. GET BETTER. Learn the character instead of complaining to the point where he gets banned.

Uh are you seriously comparing Pit's scrooging/planking to mks? Mk is the only character that you feasibly have no chance of stopping if he does his anti-approaching tactics correctly.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Uh are you seriously comparing Pit's scrooging/planking to mks? Mk is the only character that you feasibly have no chance of stopping if he does his anti-approaching tactics correctly.

Why?

Is MK completely invincible when he does this? Or is it because his moveset > everyone else's?

Smooth Criminal

 

[Steam]

Why?

Is MK completely invincible when he does this? Or is it because his moveset > everyone else's?

Smooth Criminal

the risk reward is so terrible for trying to go against MK's planking or scrooging with most of the roster it's hardly worth trying. If you somehow get through MK's extremely fast, long range moves and hit him offstage, he'll get hit and pretty much be able to recover from anywhere and be safe. mess up at all (even clash with him) and you'll probably die or take tons of damage.

pit for example has much less options in comparison to MK and he can get seriously boned if you manage to hit him down there. not to mention if he hits you it's not nearly as fatal.

 

[Kuro~]

It's either that or all of you guys have terrible ideas on what the proper criteria for a ban is. I'd rather like to think you were competent intellectuals though.

How do you figure?

Less MK means more Marth who is one of Pika's biggest counters. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=254597
Less MK means more Snake who is one of ICs biggest counters. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=242786

Falco does decently well vs both of those characters.

LOL those numbers are outdated you do know that right...?

 

[Cassio]

I feel stereotyped for Gnes.

That wasnt a stereotype, it was a response to his comment and within context of his statement. If it was said without context then itd be a stereotype.

And which pros are you talking about, because majority of the ones I talk to have thoughts similar to mine.

Where's your proof? Give me exact numbers. Until then, your point is invalid.

(more for twinikie) 1) I specifically said anecdotal evidence, lol. 2) It wasnt my point to begin with, I was countering a similar point with similar reasoning. Suffice to say I agree with your analysis.

Although in general many people have been extremely hesitant to say so because the claim cannot be true without discrediting the victories and skill of players like m2k, anti, etc.

Lol what...Being timed out is universal. In what sentence did I talk about the diddy mk matchup. Exactly what chr. is gonna stop mk from planking/scrooging etc. We've had plenty of rules. As far as planking is concerned, Whobo 1 where two mks exceeded the 90limit on ledge grabs called for reduction on the limit, and the limit has gotten smaller ever since. Winterfest brought up the scrooging rule. Yet despite both of these rules being compiled almost specifically because of mk, it still hasn't changed anything.

And which pros are you talking about, because majority of the ones I talk to have thoughts similar to mine.

Making universal claims are very hard to prove. Automatically your argument becomes more difficult because you need prove all cases wheras I only need find one exception. I doubt nor do I expect you to know enough about every character to make this judgement. I wont claim to know enough about all characters either, but I do know enough about pika to realize your claim does not apply to him particularly when the proper ruleset is in place.

Im not sure what these plenty of rules are. People brought up a scrooging rule but one was never implemented. RC and brinstar are still universally used. The timer was never increased. etc. etc. etc. Funny thing is in places where real limitations do exist (TJ, Japan, EU) there doesnt seem to be an issue. The only rule that can be said to exist is an lgl which for most of its existance was uselessly high.

On that point, saying the ledge grab was reduced doesnt tell us how effective an lgl ought to be. To use an extreme exampe, if I reduce the lgl from 1000000 to 1000 that wouldnt really say much about the effectiveness of an lgl.

 

[Judo777]

I didn't know that, Flayl. Thanks.

My point still stands. I was just waxing hyperbole. I just don't think Judo's logic in that is sound at all.

Smooth Criminal

I don't like the idea either, I play an almost low tier and i try to win. However just because I want to think its not true doesn't mean it isn't. I severely handicap myself by playing an almost low tier. I could be much better off playing a higher tier character. My play style fits perfectly with sheik and because of the time spent I cannot place any better with any other character. However if I decided to really go all out and "play to win" then it is only lesser so the case if I don' pick the best character.

Good thing is I don't "play to win" I play to have fun, its a video game at the end of the day. However I really like winning and am going to strive to do so. But if you REALLLLLYYYYY believe you should do ANYTHING to win, then not playing MK is really dumb.

 

[Jack Kieser]

People are feeling a cognitive dissonance between the realities of not wanting to be ruthless and the ruthlessness that actually is the lynchpin of the "playing to win" philosophy. They want to say they are playing to win, but don't want to deal with the kind of morality / ethics / personality / choices that naturally come with truly playing to win.

It's sad, really.

 

[Ghostbone]

BS...... there is ALOOOOT of stuff you can do to play to win that people don't do. There is believe it or not a limit on how far playing to win holds. The fact that this limit is completely subjective immediately illustrates that is in fact not concrete.

Playing Brawl in a tournament setting reaches much farther than just inside the game. Good players realize this. Going to a tournament is also about watching other people outside of matches, trying to play your games when you are ready and when you think your opponent might not be, sandbagging in friendlies prior can play a part. There are a lot of external factors that can be included in a tournament setting and these are also very easily exploitable.

There are many factors that are very dirty that can lead to a win which doesn't mean they should be exploited. Take for instance a match where one player does things to intentionally try to get their opponent to pause. Something that comes to mind was a match Will was in when the standing infinite was banned at MLG. Someone small step chain grabbed him making it look like a standing infinite, then pointed out that in about 5 seconds the match would go over 3 minutes and the replay could not be saved. Will paused in an attempt to prove the CG. Upon further review it was not and he was DQed. The other player was playing to win, does that mean we should always do stuff like that? no.

If I really wanted to win at a Brawl tournament I might not take a shower for a month prior. If I wreaked really badly while playing that could definitely distract some people mid match giving me and edge, play to win right?

This trick would no longer work but I thought of it when someone did something similar. Last stock someone rage quitted on me when I was at 0%. They unplugged their controller and walked away. I was careful about this and knocked him offstage and won, HOWEVER I know many people might just pause reset right then and there. If that player walked back around right after or someone else was watching they could call "PAUSE DQ" and take the game even tho they unplugged their controller and left. Pretty smart if you ask me but it doesn't mean you should.

Play to win in the common context is subjective so you can't even pretend that it is a factual basis for any claims you make.

@Masky there is a difference between what you said and what I said tho. You are implying that everyone is capable of playing like 10 characters. Some people simply aren't good to remember important stuff with every character or have the time to pick them all up. However playing JUST ONE character is something that most people can do. More so it is usually thought best to focus on one main before branching off.

So not playing MK is not playing to win since MK is the best character and is the best choice at the character select screen. You are intentionally choosing not optimally at the character select screen by not picking MK (assuming you can only play one character).

Well, those examples don't really fall under the mentality of playing to win.
Playing to win refers to playing to win within the game, not outside, actions such as screaming in a players ear are unsportsmanlike and should be frowned upon (as they are basically cheating) and result in a DQ.

And with MK, he may not be your best character, you may not feel motivated with him, you may be trying to abuse your opponent's inexperience in a match-up, etc. so MK might not be the best choice overall. You can still play to win without picking MK, though not knowing how to play MK is definitely a large handicap.

10greenfonts

Not going to reply until you allow your responses to be easily quotable

I've been saying this for so long. GET BETTER. Learn the character instead of complaining to the point where he gets banned.

This argument doesn't work after over 3 years.

 

[Hive]

People are feeling a cognitive dissonance between the realities of not wanting to be ruthless and the ruthlessness that actually is the lynchpin of the "playing to win" philosophy. They want to say they are playing to win, but don't want to deal with the kind of morality / ethics / personality / choices that naturally come with truly playing to win.

It's sad, really.

I like this post and think there is a certain truth to it, however, I think what needs to be emphasized is that the heart of competitive play is less about winning and more about proving something by winning. In general, I would say its easy to be a winner with enough of an advantage going your way, you can win all you want against cpus, what competitive play has the potential to truly offer is comparison of skill between yourself and another.

People tend to forget that the real goal lies in this comparison, and that the outcome of winning or losing only gains value when that comparison also holds meaning. For this to happen both players need a reasonable chance of winning on an equal skill level, and in turn a greater chance of victory towards a player of higher skill. Unfortunately, equal matchups on a common ground are not only uncommon, but avoided.

 

[Tommy_G]

LOL those numbers are outdated you do know that right...?

Show me real data to back up your claims if mine are "too outdated" for you. As of right now, you're just shooting random words out that I'm not going to argue against seeing as there's no point. It's like me saying Falcon is the best character in Melee because I saw this video and I'll say the tier list is simply outdated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpAESH_2YOw

Uh are you seriously comparing Pit's scrooging/planking to mks? Mk is the only character that you feasibly have no chance of stopping if he does his anti-approaching tactics correctly.

I'm sorry you have never played a good Pit, or one that knows how to plank effectively.

Um... no it's not. Scrooging falls under running away, not stalling.

Ok, cool. I'll just pick Hyrule and "run away" the whole match. Technically I'm not stalling.

Under this logic, every stage in the game, and every fighting game character ever should be legal. Ivan Ooze? He's beatable, just get better.
Except the part where he has loops of attacks that when including for human error and superior positioning are completely unpunishable. He doesn't lose, whereas MK has lost...plenty of times for a character you claim to be ban-able.

 

[ElDominio]

I'm sorry you have never played a good Pit, or one that knows how to plank effectively.

And you have?
Are you sure that it's just that YOU couldn't deal with it, and we can?

I'm pretty sure here I can say this safely: get better.

I've played with a pretty good Pit, and his planking is pretty, meh, reasonable. After a few seconds I can eventually figure out a way to approach.


The thing is, Pit has a range of moves, all of which he needs to plan out correctly or he'll get punished hard.
MK just throws UAirs, which covers literally EVERYONE'S option no matter what.

If Pit had ONE move he could use to keep himself safe, and kept using it mindlessly without fear of repercussion, then would his planking be unbeatable.

 

[Gnes]

That wasnt a stereotype, it was a response to his comment and within context of his statement. If it was said without context then itd be a stereotype.


(more for twinikie) 1) I specifically said anecdotal evidence, lol. 2) It wasnt my point to begin with, I was countering a similar point with similar reasoning. Suffice to say I agree with your analysis.

Although in general many people have been extremely hesitant to say so because the claim cannot be true without discrediting the victories and skill of players like m2k, anti, etc.

Making universal claims are very hard to prove. Automatically your argument becomes more difficult because you need prove all cases wheras I only need find one exception. I doubt nor do I expect you to know enough about every character to make this judgement. I wont claim to know enough about all characters either, but I do know enough about pika to realize your claim does not apply to him particularly when the proper ruleset is in place.

Im not sure what these plenty of rules are. People brought up a scrooging rule but one was never implemented. RC and brinstar are still universally used. The timer was never increased. etc. etc. etc. Funny thing is in places where real limitations do exist (TJ, Japan, EU) there doesnt seem to be an issue. The only rule that can be said to exist is an lgl which for most of its existance was uselessly high.

On that point, saying the ledge grab was reduced doesnt tell us how effective an lgl ought to be. To use an extreme exampe, if I reduce the lgl from 1000000 to 1000 that wouldnt really say much about the effectiveness of an lgl.

What exactly are you arguing? I used that statement because if you go to the tournaments I assumed you would know what the lgl was and what adjustments were made to it. This is in line with the scrooging limit on mk. Do you want me to post the ruleset or something? Or are you saying it isn't effective?

Trying to assume how much knowledge I have the game is counter-productive because you don't know me, but the player's in my region know I can play everyone on the roster at a high lvl. I'm not saying I know the specific frame management of every character, but I do know the frames of mk and stating that chrs. can indeed stop his tactics is well beyond the truth.

Stop trying to exemplify this into some complicated argument. In what specific ruleset does PIKACHU stop mk?

I'm sorry you have never played a good Pit, or one that knows how to plank effectively.

Uh how do know you what pits I've played? And besides please answer my question. I would love to understand how and in what way pit's tactics offstage equal mks when his frames are CLEARLY outclassed.

For the record, Not only did I extensively play Earth in friendlies at Apex, but also at Genesis 2. I also use to regularly practice with the best pit in Texas(Esca) and get hours of practice from another one currently. "Good" is subjective though. I don't know what YOU consider good.

 

[Judo777]

What exactly are you arguing? I used that statement because if you go to the tournaments I assumed you would know what the lgl was and what adjustments were made to it. This is in line with the scrooging limit on mk. Do you want me to post the ruleset or something? Or are you saying it isn't effective?

Trying to assume how much knowledge I have the game is counter-productive because you don't know me, but the player's in my region know I can play everyone on the roster at a high lvl. I'm not saying I know the specific frame management of every character, but I do know the frames of mk and stating that chrs. can indeed stop his tactics is well beyond the truth.

Stop trying to exemplify this into some complicated argument. In what specific ruleset does PIKACHU stop mk?


Uh how do know you what pits I've played? And besides please answer my question. I would love to understand how and in what way pit's tactics offstage equal mks when his frames are CLEARLY outclassed.

For the record, Not only did I extensively play Earth in friendlies at Apex, but also at Genesis 2. I also use to regularly practice with the best pit in Texas(Esca) and get hours of practice from another one currently. "Good" is subjective though. I don't know what YOU consider good.

Well considering Earth is arguably the best pit player in the world......... lol but no you haven't played good pits

 

[Cassio]

What exactly are you arguing? I used that statement because if you go to the tournaments I assumed you would know what the lgl was and what adjustments were made to it. This is in line with the scrooging limit on mk. Do you want me to post the ruleset or something? Or are you saying it isn't effective?

Trying to assume how much knowledge I have the game is counter-productive because you don't know me, but the player's in my region know I can play everyone on the roster at a high lvl. I'm not saying I know the specific frame management of every character, but I do know the frames of mk and stating that chrs. can indeed stop his tactics is well beyond the truth.

Stop trying to exemplify this into some complicated argument. In what specific ruleset does PIKACHU stop mk?

Yes, when youre asked to give credibility to your claims things unfortunately are more complicated. If you simply wish to hold on to your opinions and dont care if its a reasonable one you are not obligated to do so. Your opinion is more valuable than most, but as a claim, without good reasoning its not any different than when m2k comes around and says MK loses to diddy. That leads to my next point:

You forced me to assume what sort of knowledge you have. When you say something similar to "all characters lose to these tactics" and to take it as truth based on your testimony, I can either assume you have extensive knowledge about all characters and believe it, or assume you dont and question it. Given that anyone having extensive knowledge of all characters is inherently unreasonable, questioning it was an easy choice even without knowing you personally. Im also not trying to offend you personally or your player skill, I dont deny there are subjects where your testimony should be enough but its way too much and a bit egotistical to make claims about all characters. Its one thing to say its your opinion and another to claim it as truth. tbh this tangent is something we dont really need to talk about.

For the lgl, yes I was saying it wasnt effective at the limit it was set at for quite awhile. If the limit is set too high then an lgl essentially does not exist at all. Im also not sure what scooging limit you mean, feel free to show me where that is. Overall, you cant reason that rules have done little to alleviate the issue since such rules have been somewhere between minimal and essentailly non-existant. If anything MK has had his most powerful ruleset for most of brawls lifespan. Recall this was your claim:
" the rules haven't done anything but slightly mediate the process if anything."

As far as the ruleset with pika specifically, Id say removing brinstar, having a good lgl, a minute or two on the timer and maybe one or two other stages would even be a step or two into overkill. All are rules people ask for regardless of if MK is banned or not. Adding a scrooging rule may be MK specific, not sure yet but thats for sure overkill in regards to pika. Arguably none of these changes have to occur. For reference, your claim:
"Any combination of Planking/Scrooging/Ledge Camping is literally gamebreaking"

 

[Judo777]

Yes, when youre asked to give credibility to your claims things unfortunately are more complicated. If you simply wish to hold on to your opinions and dont care if its a reasonable one you are not obligated to do so. Your opinion is more valuable than most, but as a claim, without good reasoning its not any different than when m2k comes around and says MK loses to diddy. That leads to my next point:

You forced me to assume what sort of knowledge you have. When you say something similar to "all characters lose to these tactics" and to take it as truth based on your testimony, I can either assume you have extensive knowledge about all characters and believe it, or assume you dont and question it. Given that anyone having extensive knowledge of all characters is inherently unreasonable, questioning it was an easy choice even without knowing you personally. Im also not trying to offend you personally or your player skill, I dont deny there are subjects where your testimony should be enough but its way too much and a bit egotistical to make claims about all characters. Its one thing to say its your opinion and another to claim it as truth. tbh this tangent is something we dont really need to talk about.

For the lgl, yes I was saying it wasnt effective at the limit it was set at for quite awhile. If the limit is set too high then an lgl essentially does not exist at all. Im also not sure what scooging limit you mean, feel free to show me where that is. Overall, you cant reason that rules have done little to alleviate the issue since such rules have been somewhere between minimal and essentailly non-existant. If anything MK has had his most powerful ruleset for most of brawls lifespan. Recall this was your claim:
" the rules haven't done anything but slightly mediate the process if anything."

As far as the ruleset with pika specifically, Id say removing brinstar, having a good lgl, a minute or two on the timer and maybe one or two other stages would even be a step or two into overkill. All are rules people ask for regardless of if MK is banned or not. Adding a scrooging rule may be MK specific, not sure yet but thats for sure overkill in regards to pika. Arguably none of these changes have to occur. For reference, your claim:
"Any combination of Planking/Scrooging/Ledge Camping is literally gamebreaking"

I don't think it safe to make any ledge specfic rules until we have evidence that any character besides MK's ledge play is an issue. Like that how it always works. Give evidence that something is too powerful and then we will try and fix it. I have not seen anything remotely recent where planking by one character was a large problem for more than specific MU's.

 

[Cassio]

I don't think it safe to make any ledge specfic rules until we have evidence that any character besides MK's ledge play is an issue. Like that how it always works. Give evidence that something is too powerful and then we will try and fix it. I have not seen anything remotely recent where planking by one character was a large problem for more than specific MU's.

I didnt touch on whether an lgl should exist, although Ill briefly discuss it.

Essentially youre trying to say an lgl makes little sense. Why tamper with the way the game was designed if its in some way beatable correct?

Consider brawl untampered. A game with items played as designed, and exceptionally balanced. Planking, scrooging, camping and stalling? Non-issues.

Random factors were reduced which included eliminating all items. Unfortunately this caused many detrimental side affects and balance issues as I listed previously (although its actually way more than this). Simply by removing items we've already set on a path where we are ok with tampering with the game to resolve problematic issues. That, in addition to the fact that these issues are problems we created makes resolving such issues not only reasonable and consistent, but necessary. In fact we've already done this, as camping became an issue after items a timer was added to alleviate the problems caused by camping.

With the ruleset we use, it makes much more sense to use an lgl and little sense not to.

 

[ElDominio]

Consider brawl untampered. A game with items played as designed, and exceptionally balanced. Planking, scrooging, camping and stalling? Non-issues.

http://cl.ly/0V3M3v462R1Q0W2t312f

In any case, actually... Nintendo literally says "here you go, do what you will"

 

[Cassio]

Great! Than you dont disagree with the lgl .

 

[Ghostbone]

I think you're missing the part where there's an item switch in-game.
The same cannot be said about a LGL.

 

[Cassio]

Oh right! Time to start using sudden death to determine timeouts amiright?

Whats that, you dont agree and your argument is simply inconsistent? omai...

 

[Ghostbone]

Except it's necessary to ignore Sudden Death

 

[WindMajor]

Unlike the LGL, which cannot be used.

 

[Cassio]

Why of course it can. The lgl is just another condition for victory, just like the timout by percent. Before you try to respond to this, read and reply to the full argument I gave to you here:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13592554&postcount=227

ghost:

Whats that, you dont agree and your argument is simply inconsistent? omai...

 

[Ghostbone]

In response to your long thing.

Again, one is necessary, one isn't.

The LGL isn't necessary, explain how it is if you think so.

If we look at the timer, we have it because it adds another victory condition, and because without it the game wouldn't be competitive.
Unfortunately degenerate tactics still emerge unless we fix it so that players win if they have the percentage lead.
In this case, without this rule, the game wouldn't be competitive.

Excluding MK, the LGL does nothing to increase the competitiveness of the game.
The only reason it should ever be in place is because the majority wants it, you can't argue it to be competitively sound though.

 

[Tommy_G]

I laugh soooo hard to those of you who thinks we don't need a LGL if MK is banned.

There are a lot of characters that can't do anything about it when some characters do it. If they do happen to do something about it, it wasn't because it wasn't MK, but instead because they messed up their ledge game.

Do you really want to see a lot of competitive matches turn into ledge fights? Where one characters constantly struggles to do nothing but try to get someone off of a ledge?

 

[WindMajor]

Are you kidding? That entire post was a huge strawman. You didn't deny any points about the LGL being flawed, but instead, you went on a tangent explaining that it's "just another win condition we put up, like the timer".

My point still stands, the LGL is a flawed win condition that we have adopted, but shouldn't adopt anymore.

On to the discussion. You claim an lgl unfairly disqualifies people from conditions we wish to measure, but I could easily turn this around and say the lgl simply institutes another condition for victory. Whether people were grabbing the ledge to plank or recover is irrelevant, and in its own odd way adds strategy in regards to the ledge.

Look at that strawman right there.

 

[Cassio]

In that case, its not so much the timeout as it is the arbitrary decision to have the victor determined by percent. The game would still be competitive with sudden death, and the tactics would be essentially the same as what exist now.

 

[Cassio]

lol, jumping up and down and claiming its a strawman doesnt turn it into a strawman.

I think you missed the point because it was separated by a sentance

Essentially youre appealing to fairness as it applies to the community, therefore your entire argument is subjective...You claim an lgl unfairly disqualifies people from conditions we wish to measure, but I could easily turn this around and say the lgl simply institutes another condition for victory. Whether people were grabbing the ledge to plank or recover is irrelevant, and in its own odd way adds strategy in regards to the ledge.

Sorry dude, but it is subjective, making it poopoo. Your entire argument hinges on whether or not people wish to give credence to it as a winning condition or not by their own desire.

People who lose by timeout are no more "disqualified" than people who lose by an lgl. Theres really no difference between the two unless the community wants there to be for their own sake.

I suppose I should clarify more.

1. I do not accept the lgl as a winning condition and therefore people who win by lgl are disqualified
2. I accept the lgl as a winning condition

Both are equally valid, subjective interpretations to the same rule, with the community largely siding with the latter. Thats in addition to the logical consistency the second interpretation gives our ruleset.

 

[Ghostbone]

In that case, its not so much the timeout as it is the arbitrary decision to have the victor determined by percent. The game would still be competitive with sudden death, and the tactics would be essentially the same as what exist now.

The game would not be competitive with sudden death.

I suppose I should clarify more.

1. I do not accept the lgl as a winning condition and therefore people who win by lgl are disqualified
2. I accept the lgl as a winning condition

Both are equally valid, subjective interpretations to the same rule, with the community largely siding with the latter. Thats in addition to the logical consistency the second interpretation gives our ruleset.

Explain why both are equally valid, and why the 2nd is logically consistent while the other isn't.

All I'm hearing from you is that all rules are fine and we could say that the winner is determined by who looked the most stylish if we wanted.

 

[Cassio]

Very good questions.

The logical consistency goes along with that post I linked to before which I would recommend you read for a full answer to your question. In summary though, we've already determined that we can set our own conditions for victory to solve issues, the precedence being the timeout by percent. We've also created our own limiations which appears to be "to solve issues", meaning unfortunately were unlikely to see style battles, maybe for the better since CF would be pretty broken .

Theyre both equally valid because its entirely a matter of opinion. Its like saying "I like apples" vs "I like oranges" (oranges are definitely better though ).

Also, sudden death would be competitive, but extremely random and apparently not something we wish to measure. Its competitive like Rock Paper Scissors is competitive.

 

[Conviction]

I thought randomness took away from competitiveness...

 

[Cassio]

random can still be competitive. Just imagine a completely random board game, or even something like tossing a coin or rock paper scissors.

I think what youre implying is that randomness in a sense takes away from skill, which is sort of true. IMO its more like a scale or concentration, where if you add more "random" then "skill" in a sense loses its potency.

That being said Im not entirely sold on items drastically reducing "randomness". Thats for another time though and am ok with a game with or without items. I just think theyre needlessly hated on and see good reason for using them as well as not.

 

[Conviction]

What? How do you focus on something that is random.

If it is truly random you will never be able to focus on it.

Skill vs. Skill is what I thought competitiveness was. Idk how everything being random can be called competitive what-so-ever.

 

[WindMajor]

lol, jumping up and down and claiming its a strawman doesnt turn it into a strawman.

I think you missed the point because it was separated by a sentance


Sorry dude, but it is subjective, making it poopoo. Your entire argument hinges on whether or not people wish to give credence to it as a winning condition or not by their own desire.

Metaknight vs. Falco. MK wins by time, but gets 36 ledge grabs.

Tell me what exactly was MK doing on the ledge. Was he planking, or was he just playing regularly? How did it look like? Unsnap, Uair Uair resnap? Drop down, DownB, resnap?

Tell me, was Falco pressuring the MK to stay on the ledge, or was Falco trying to get MK off the ledge?

Tell me for how much time exactly was MK on the ledge for in total. Answer can be in seconds, minutes, or frames.

Tell me for how much time was MK untouchable while he was on the ledge. This includes his Uar's range making him "untouchable". Again, the answer can be in seconds, minutes, or frames.

Tell me how many of the 36 edge grabs went to regular use of the ledge, as opposed to planking with the intention of stalling (assuming you could tell for sure that he was purposefully stalling).

Then just for fun, answer those same questions, but instead of an LGL of 36, let's assume that MK's air time was 4 minutes exactly.

Spoiler

It's just as useless

If you can't answer any of those questions clearly, then you would be admitting that MK would lose that match based on information that's clearly lacking. If the evidence is lacking, that means that there's no way to prove that MK did something acceptable or unacceptable, legal or illegal. That being said, even though we're using it as a win condition, it's clearly unfair to declare that MK did something wrong and give him the loss, when such a claim hasn't been proven. That would be like saying he's guilty until proven innocent, but he'll never be proven innocent because evidence that we're looking for doesn't exist.

 

[Cassio]

an lgl doesnt need to prevent planking or even frown on it...whether people were grabbing the ledge to plank or recover is irrelevant, and in its own odd way adds strategy in regards to the ledge.

Timeout by percent was added to prevent the issues that occured from camping. Does it prevent camping? No. Does it differentiate between those who camp and those who dont? No. Does the rule frown upon camping? No. Does the community even frown on camping? Almost the opposite. In spite of the issues camping causes, we dont concernt ourselves with the legality or illegality of camping, so why do so with planking?

Once again ftw, lgl is consistent with our communities ideology. Having no lgl is not, it just creates a mess.

What? How do you focus on something that is random.

If it is truly random you will never be able to focus on it.

Skill vs. Skill is what I thought competitiveness was. Idk how everything being random can be called competitive what-so-ever.

I understand what youre saying since I sort of felt this way before. Focus is an attribute of skill, not competition. In general people prefer competition always be about skill because we want to be masters of our own fate. Even though most competition is skilled, that doesnt change that randomness is still competitive by definition.

 

[Ghostbone]

Very good questions.

The logical consistency goes along with that post I linked to before which I would recommend you read for a full answer to your question. In summary though, we've already determined that we can set our own conditions for victory to solve issues, the precedence being the timeout by percent. We've also created our own limiations which appears to be "to solve issues", meaning unfortunately were unlikely to see style battles, maybe for the better since CF would be pretty broken .

Except, there's no real evidence of a competitive issue with planking.
All we have is people whining about it when they have no evidence that it's broken.
A LGL might limit planking, but there's nothing inherently wrong with planking.

Also, sudden death would be competitive, but extremely random and apparently not something we wish to measure. Its competitive like Rock Paper Scissors is competitive.

No it wouldn't, really, it wouldn't.
Rock Paper Scissors is way more competitive than Sudden Death.
Sudden Death doesn't have a timer, and bombs don't spawn on the side of the stage.
Hint, everyone would just run to the ledge and games would never end.
You could ban grabbing the ledge, which could make SD competitive I agree, but then we still have the problems with trying to time out while losing in regular gameplay

 

[Conviction]

Do happen to understand anything me or Twinkie are saying....

Wait hold that thought.

We out.

 

[Cassio]

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.

Except, there's no real evidence of a competitive issue with planking.
All we have is people whining about it when they have no evidence that it's broken.
A LGL might limit planking, but there's nothing inherently wrong with planking.

It doesnt need to be broken to be an issue. Camping isnt broken yet we still have rules in place for it.

No it wouldn't, really, it wouldn't.
Rock Paper Scissors is way more competitive than Sudden Death.
Sudden Death doesn't have a timer, and bombs don't spawn on the side of the stage.
Hint, everyone would just run to the ledge and games would never end.
You could ban grabbing the ledge, which could make SD competitive I agree,

ok, but I also dont think banning the ledge is necessary either since youre not invincible forever when they grab/regrab etc. Well, maybe thats actually true so I wont disagree either. I agree with you about Rock Paper Scissors though, lol.

but then we still have the problems with trying to time out while losing in regular gameplay

Why is that a problem if the community determines thats what they want?

 

[Conviction]

Ugh, why did you insist on responding after I said hold that thought.

Now I have actually have to stop watching Sonic Generations to repsond to your posts debate.

Metaknight vs. Falco. MK wins by time, but gets 36 ledge grabs.

Tell me what exactly was MK doing on the ledge. Was he planking, or was he just playing regularly? How did it look like? Unsnap, Uair Uair resnap? Drop down, DownB, resnap?

Tell me, was Falco pressuring the MK to stay on the ledge, or was Falco trying to get MK off the ledge?

Tell me for how much time exactly was MK on the ledge for in total. Answer can be in seconds, minutes, or frames.

Tell me for how much time was MK untouchable while he was on the ledge. This includes his Uar's range making him "untouchable". Again, the answer can be in seconds, minutes, or frames.

Tell me how many of the 36 edge grabs went to regular use of the ledge, as opposed to planking with the intention of stalling (assuming you could tell for sure that he was purposefully stalling).

Then just for fun, answer those same questions, but instead of an LGL of 36, let's assume that MK's air time was 4 minutes exactly.

Spoiler

It's just as useless

If you can't answer any of those questions clearly, then you would be admitting that MK would lose that match based on information that's clearly lacking. If the evidence is lacking, that means that there's no way to prove that MK did something acceptable or unacceptable, legal or illegal. That being said, even though we're using it as a win condition, it's clearly unfair to declare that MK did something wrong and give him the loss, when such a claim hasn't been proven. That would be like saying he's guilty until proven innocent, but he'll never be proven innocent because evidence that we're looking for doesn't exist.

How about for one Cassio, answering the quote above. It's not hard to see his point and you basically have been ignoring it.

I'll spell it out for you.

Can you put a rule on intent? Your evidence can't be found because the intent can't be found. Their situation causes a gray area. This is his point.

Your response is to try to logically put a ruling on it.

But you have chosen to ignore it. Try answering something legitly this time.

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. Its cool though, thats how most people do it.

It doesnt need to be broken to be an issue. Camping isnt broken yet we still have rules in place for it.

ok, but I also dont think banning the ledge is necessary either since youre not invincible forever. I agree with you about Rock Paper Scissors though, lol.

Why is that a problem?

LOL, I don't understand logic and reason, and this coming from Jebus 2.0??

Timeout by percent was added to prevent the issues that occured from camping. Does it prevent camping? No. Does it differentiate between those who camp and those who dont? No. Does the rule frown upon camping? No. Does the community even frown on camping? Almost the opposite. In spite of the issues camping causes, we dont concernt ourselves with the legality or illegality of camping, so why do so with planking?

Once again ftw, lgl is consistent with our communities ideology. Having no lgl is not, it just creates a mess.

I understand what youre saying since I sort of felt this way before. Focus is an attribute of skill, not competition. In general people prefer competition always be about skill because we want to be masters of our own fate. Even though most competition is skilled, that doesnt change that randomness is still competitive by definition.

The Underlined doesn't even make sense...forreal what was the point of that? The point we were making is that the LGL should be gone since the real threat that enforced a LGL on the whole cast will soon be banned.

There shouldn't be a limit on planking because other characters' planking are beatable.

Come on then Cassio, I'll entertain your game for your last paragraph. If we are follow "consistent ideologies", the status quo is like how you said, the general masses wish to control their fate in competition. Then why are supporting random elements?

 

[Cassio]

Oh cool, you came up with a nickname to try and discredit my arguments without having to argue. Even though Im respectful to people who are respectful back.

Anyways, I didnt ignore it. You underlined my response and then said it didnt make sense...lol. Twinkie tried to argue that we cant differentiate between "good planking" and "bad planking". My response was, who cares? Just treat it all the same and make it a victory condition.

Now Im assuming youre burnt up about treating all planking as the same, so I ask why youre not ok with it when we do the same thing for camping and timeout by percent? The parellels are exactly the same and approving of one and not the other is incredibly inconsistent.

Even your point about planking not being broken has a parallel, as camping is not broken yet we have a rule in place for it.