Grim's LGL arguing thread

[John12346]

And yet Will lost his first stock because he screwed up his planking.

 

[theunabletable]

^actually, from what I can see, he lost his first stock because it was the first time he DIDN'T continue planking haha

 

[Jack Kieser]

Question: now that PPlanking and MK are gone, can we finally get rid of these stupid, insipid LGLs?

 

[Cassio]

Perfect planking never existed.

Regardless, without MK in regards to lgls, the new standard measures will likely be GW and pikachu. I dont know that its valuable to say that a mid-tier characters planking is broken because, even if it is, its still reasonable to beat them with clear cut superior characters. Take a lead, force them to approach and don't screw up too much.

Removal of the lgl would probaly make pikachu a top 5 if not 3 character in the game. It instantly helps all his bad MUs and potentially prevent him from having any bad MUs at all. I dont know enough about GW to know if it would help his difficult MUs or not. Same with ROB and Pit. I cant think of anyone else who's planking would have broad applications.

As far as characters almost anyone can plank...ICs would take a huge blow, possibly fall out of top tier. Oli would take a hit.

 

[popsofctown]

Pikachu's planking has lots of vulnerability. I'm not sure it's that good.

 

[Cassio]

Its not unbeatable, but he also doesnt leave himself very vulnerable. Its not the best planking, but take [top tier character] + [good planking ability] and you have a character thats likely to take it the furthest. I mean, would anyone really care if Ganon had the ability to plank like MK?

Who are the best anti-plankers anyways?

 

[WindMajor]

Toon Link has some good tools IMO, but I haven't really tested them in depth.

 

[Cassio]

Forgot about TL as a planker too. So I guess 3 high tier characters that are good at planking.

 

[WindMajor]

I meant TL as an anti-planker. TL can't plank at all.

 

[Ghostbone]

Snake ***** plankers.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

And yet Will lost his first stock because he screwed up his planking.

He lost one stock, but ended up taking two with this strategy

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Perfect planking never existed.

Yes, it did.

Regardless, without MK in regards to lgls, the new standard measures will likely be GW and pikachu. I dont know that its valuable to say that a mid-tier characters planking is broken because, even if it is, its still reasonable to beat them with clear cut superior characters. Take a lead, force them to approach and don't screw up too much.

G&W and Pikachu don't need LGLs.

Did you even read any of my arguments throughout this thread?

Removal of the lgl would probaly make pikachu a top 5 if not 3 character in the game. It instantly helps all his bad MUs and potentially prevent him from having any bad MUs at all.

olololololololol

As far as characters almost anyone can plank...ICs would take a huge blow, possibly fall out of top tier. Oli would take a hit.

Oli and ICs can both stop planking with relative ease >_>

Can people stop just assuming that planking is some god-like camping tactic without any evidence to support them?

Its not unbeatable, but he also doesnt leave himself very vulnerable. Its not the best planking, but take [top tier character] + [good planking ability] and you have a character thats likely to take it the furthest. I mean, would anyone really care if Ganon had the ability to plank like MK?

Pikachu is definitely not top tier. The only reason he is as high as he is right now is because of ESAM doing well and his good (but overrated) MU against Meta Knight.

 

[Cassio]

Only thing in that post I agree with is pika and GW not needing an lgl. Everything else it seems like you probably dont have enough knowledge on the subject, though its forgivable.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I feel the same way about your posts, so it seems we have met an impasse.

 

[Cassio]

No need to be salty, lol.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No salt here, MK has been banned and I just came back from the best Smash tournament I've ever attended. All is well in Grim Tuesday world.

 

[Judo777]

Olimar can stop DK's planking on every stage except except Yoshis. Ban it?

 

[Ghostbone]

Olimar can stop DK's planking on every stage except except Yoshis. Ban it?

Ban Yoshi's, I mean dem ghosts, it's like picto.

 

[Akaku94]

I don't even know why we're discussing this anymore... The original reason we had an LGL was for MK, and the only reason we had an LGL for anyone else was because an MK-specific one would prove he was broken... Every other plank in the game is beatable, and thus no different than any other strong camping tactic.

 

[Mithost]

I think that instead of a counter on how many times you can grab a ledge, make a time limit from the first ledge grab until the ledge grabber does any of the following:

-Gets hit by an opponent
-Lands on the stage without automatically dropping to the ledge again (perhaps a 2 second cool down?)
-Flies under the middle of the stage to get to the other side of it
-Otherwise getting into an approach with the opponent where the ledge grabber moves towards the other player

This makes it impossible to simply reach the limit by being constantly pushed off the ledge or edge guarding. It is also somewhat easier to count.

 

[popsofctown]

I think that instead of a counter on how many times you can grab a ledge, make a time limit from the first ledge grab until the ledge grabber does any of the following:

-Gets hit by an opponent
-Lands on the stage without automatically dropping to the ledge again (perhaps a 2 second cool down?)
-Flies under the middle of the stage to get to the other side of it
-Otherwise getting into an approach with the opponent where the ledge grabber moves towards the other player

This makes it impossible to simply reach the limit by being constantly pushed off the ledge or edge guarding. It is also somewhat easier to count.

You're missing the point. You shouldn't ban strategies that aren't broken.

People talking about this or that breaking an LGL free metagame sound like people who thought they knew the entire tier list brawl came out. You don't know, because we haven't really had an LGL free metagame. Unless we admit people have been aware of the option for quite some time anyway and it has hardly been winning any tournaments.

 

[Mithost]

You're missing the point. You shouldn't ban strategies that aren't broken.

People talking about this or that breaking an LGL free metagame sound like people who thought they knew the entire tier list brawl came out. You don't know, because we haven't really had an LGL free metagame. Unless we admit people have been aware of the option for quite some time anyway and it has hardly been winning any tournaments.

Well, it was more of a suggestive idea to replace the LGL because the LGL can currently harm someone not planking and could be abused with someone like Ike where practically every move is made to push the player off stage.

 

[popsofctown]

Yes. And your suggestion is probably an improvement over the planking rule (I didn't read it). But the planking rule doesn't need to exist at all, nor does a replacement.

 

[Ghostbone]

Well, it was more of a suggestive idea to replace the LGL because the LGL can currently harm someone not planking and could be abused with someone like Ike where practically every move is made to push the player off stage.

Your idea sounds a lot more harmful imo.

 

[Akaku94]

no replacement is needed... MK was the only broken planking... with him out of the way, it becomes just another strong camping tactic...

 

[OmniOstrich]

why are you trying to making camping/timing out stronger lol

 

[Akaku94]

Because it's a legitimate tactic? Since there is a timeout clause, winning by timeout is just as legitimate under the Unity ruleset as getting 3 KOs! We may say it's "gay" or "cheap," but camping is a character strength/weakness. Furthermore, it is impossible to get rid of "gay" stalling tactics without either a) Having an official watch every match, b) making an arbitrary limit on some aspect of stalling like an LGL (which has unintended side-effects that lead to losing by technicality even when no planking occurred), or c) Ban characters with OP stalling and leave the rest alone...

Well, MK is gone... looks like C to me!

 

[Timic83]

make custom stages (using stage builder) that are copies of all the currently legal stages but with ungrabbable ledges

???

profit

 

[T0MMY]

Get rid of %-based tie-breakers.
That gets rid of the motivation to time people out.
Solved.

 

[John12346]

This... still doesn't really solve stock differentials. And... it doesn't really change the timeout scenario; it just gives the player LOSING by percent an incentive to try timing out in order to reset the percent back to 0/0.

But I am glad you randomly necro'd this. I wanna revive the discussion.

Whoever thinks the LGL needs to remain in effect, put out your reasoning. I wanna hear it.

 

[DMG]

You eventually need a win condition to settle endless rematches however. Going to Sudden Death is awful, that should not even be considered ever (for the people advocating to use that as a rematch or decider). If the original game goes to time, do a 1 stock rematch. If that goes to time, use % rule.

I can understand not wanting to use % rule, but we can't sit here and say well we don't truly know who's the winner when stocks are tied so rematch until that doesn't happen. The % rule is fine if you also hit stalling. If stalling/excessive stalling isn't happening, then the argument that people can stall to abuse the % rule is inherently false. It's no fault of the rule itself if we are weak at enforcing the no stalling rule, since people would have to be stalling to abuse the rule (people complain about the rule when MK planks with that 1% lead and wins, not in fighting scenarios). In reality if we enforced no stalling in a broader and stricter way, the rule would be completely fine.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If the match goes to time and stocks are tied, do a 1 stock rematch and get the player's percentages the same as they were the previous match, rounded via handicap.

Continue until someone wins.

 

[Cassio]

it just gives the player LOSING by percent an incentive to try timing out in order to reset the percent back to 0/0.

Who is to say they are losing though? Certainly not the game. In fact on more that one occasion Ive seen the marquee on PS1/PS2 tell me Im the current leader when Im behind in percent.

Relevant video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H_Jil1CBNs#t=10m00s

relevant comment on said video:
Keitaro wrote at 12:55 PM on Jan 23, 2012 :
lol again at that! I think I'm in love with that ruleset :D

I never liked the ability to be able to win by timeout. Although it is still possible if there is a stock difference, i still like this sudden death playout better personally.

I agree with Keitaro and T0mmy. Eliminate % based win conditions. However if we do accept arbitrarly declaring winners based on percent, it severely weakens the argument for the removal of the lgl.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Who says that they are losing when they have lower stock?

Certainly not Lucario.

 

[DMG]

Well actually that depends too. Lucario a stock down who's also at low % is pretty weak. And his comeback factor diminishes the more he kills the opponent even if he was already 2 stocks down before.

 

[popsofctown]

If the match goes to time and stocks are tied, do a 1 stock rematch and get the player's percentages the same as they were the previous match, rounded via handicap.

Continue until someone wins.

That still doesn't work. In a game and watch versus mario match, game and watch and mario both deal damage better if they aren't the one approaching, so both of them will time out even a 30% versus 60% game waiting for the other player to approach.

But, this in conjunction with a more creative solution like a small tiebreaker stage with no ledges could work. Or, "in one stock rematch, you may not use a character you have played so far this set, including characters played in one stock rematches". That actually has a lot of benefits. A player with a % advantage is motivated to capitalize on it in the original match itself, because when the players change characters a fatty can be used to mitigate the effect of the % advantage. Most of the good stalling characters, by coincidence really, tend not to be played alongside secondaries, so they might choose not to go to the secondaries rematch (Marth, Game/Watch, Pikachu, MK, all have well rounded matchup spreads and little need for a secondary. DK is a notable exception).

That's assuming a solution is needed because the current rules, without LGL, don't do enough to present stalling. Since pre LGL a ridiculously small fraction of games ended in timeout if they did not include MK, there's no evidence of that and the LGL is ridiculous.

 

[Cassio]

However if we do accept arbitrarly declaring winners based on percent, it severely weakens the argument for the removal of the lgl.

The issue begins with the arbitrary ruleset. If people refuse to change arbitrary elements, then asking for the removal of the lgl is hypocritical.

 

[WindMajor]

Ties within the same stock should be resolved with rock paper scissors.

It's a tiebreaking condition that is so ****ty that absolutely nobody would want their sets to resort to it, therefore it is in everyone's best interests to never time out. It also works out because rock-paper-scissors is extremely nail-biting and hype, as well as quick to finish if you're concerned with tournament length.

 

[infiniteV115]

How about something like

If both players are at the same stock during the timeout, and one player has a % advantage of 50% or more, then they are declared the winner. Otherwise, a 1-stock, 3-minute rematch is done, same characters, same stage.

I know 50 is an arbitrary number, which is the problem that everyone has with the current tie-breaker rule, but...but...:D?

 

[WindMajor]

Percents aren't an indicator of who is closer to winning because of how common gimping is. If anything, the winning conditions of Smash is getting 3 ring-outs, if you want to know who is closer to winning, one would have to consider distance from the blastzones as a winning condition.

That would be completely idiotic though, since we don't have reasonable units to count with, let alone tools to measure them on the fly.