Grim's LGL arguing thread

[Life]

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.

I actually kinda like this.

 

[DMG]

Well doing RPS wouldn't be that unfair besides someone with a massive lead basically losing to it.

 

[WindMajor]

It's also unfair because it nerfs Toon Link, which is bad.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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.

Maybe in Super Theory Bros, but camping isn't a strong enough tactic for neither player to take damage.

If it was, matches would never be decided because both players start off tied and, apparently, neither wants to approach.

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.

This also fails to take into account positional and mental (momentum) advantages.

Long story short, there is no indication of being closer to winning apart from actually winning. Its just like Chess.

 

[popsofctown]

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.

It's not hypocritical. I advocate only arbitrary elements that are strictly necessary for tournaments to finish within 300 hours, like a timer and a method of declaring a winner at time out.

Maybe in Super Theory Bros, but camping isn't a strong enough tactic for neither player to take damage.

If it was, matches would never be decided because both players start off tied and, apparently, neither wants to approach.

This got me to thinking about why there was no ledge camping at a tie, pre LGL. Really, when I think about it, it's a social norm. The only kind of stalling that would work at a tie is on the ledge, and one player would have to repeatedly drop and regrab the ledge while his opponent stayed onstage in a relatively vulnerable position and waited if he wanted to play brawl.
If you have a percent lead, planking increases the probability you're going to win, so it's socially acceptable by enlightened players.
If you don't have a percent lead though, tie planking just repeatedly makes 1 stock sudden deaths until someone falls asleep. The only way that the tactic can improve your probability of winning is by exploiting your opponent's physiological needs. That's considered about as acceptable as yelling in someone's ear or foodpoisoning their lunch.

This same social norm would probably carry over into your variation of sudden death, I just failed to follow that. So it would work fine. A player that remained offstage to such an extreme extent that no damage ever gets exchanged would be extending the tournament for no possible advantage, so he will at least get onstage some of the time, and onstage, as you say, camping only works in theorycraft bros, like when I wish I could perfectshield Falco's lasers for 8 minutes straight until I forced him to approach, or try out similar passive strategies in matches with no projectile.

The sudden death would bring the norm more to the test though. And if one player is 5% ahead of the other, one could legitimately plank until the game timed out in order to get the rounding to work in their favor, whether you round up or down. Some sort of catchall like third one-stock rematch is always Bridge of Eldin would make me feel better about it.

 

[Arcansi]

Maybe in Super Theory Bros, but camping isn't a strong enough tactic for neither player to take damage.

If it was, matches would never be decided because both players start off tied and, apparently, neither wants to approach.

You would have to be actually playing with two characters who are both content to camp when even or near even, know it is the best strategy for them, and are competent at it.

This rarely if ever happens in any matchup.

This also fails to take into account positional and mental (momentum) advantages.

Long story short, there is no indication of being closer to winning apart from actually winning. Its just like Chess.

Which is why Chess uses a points system for when games come to time, correct?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You would have to be actually playing with two characters who are both content to camp when even or near even, know it is the best strategy for them, and are competent at it.

This rarely if ever happens in any matchup.

Not sure if you are trying to argue or add onto my point, but you're right.

Which is why Chess uses a points system for when games come to time, correct?

Was not aware of this.

My point stands regardless, you are never objectively winning in Brawl, you can only win or lose. So saying a percentage-based rule is bad for that reason is silly.

The bad grammar in your signature gets on my nerves every time I subconsciously read it.

 

[DMG]

????

That's not at all how Chess works

Both players have their own clock to make moves

If your clock runs out before the other guy, you lose

As for the points system, I'm guessing you're talking about the general evaluation scores people have for material. Those are guidelines to help roughly evaluate positiions, however obviously positional advantages can compensate for even extreme material disadvantages. Like sacking the Queen for mate in 3, and they are used by players as a rule of thumb not as an official rule for deciding positions (because obviously only going off material is too simple to determine who's winning). There is no "when time runs out, calculate your material and whoever has more wins". But Chess is different than Smash because the two players have their own turns while in Smash you have to fight the other guy at the same time so you have 1 blanket timer.

 

[-LzR-]

Let's bring the Pokemon Stadium argument again.
The screen says who player has a lead, in case of same stocks, it check the %.

 

[Cassio]

^Thats actually not true. Ive been behind in percent but put on the screen as the leader. I think it has something to do with those same factors where they pick someone to chant for too.

It's not hypocritical. I advocate only arbitrary elements that are strictly necessary for tournaments to finish within 300 hours, like a timer and a method of declaring a winner at time out.

Its hypocritical if the arbitrary method chosen becomes some unchangeable standard in spite of the problems it creates.

 

[-LzR-]

Oh well my bad then, I just heard it been mentioned several times :s

 

[Latias]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc&feature=relmfu

 

[#HBC | Joker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0r0DkNiqxc&feature=relmfu

Lol, I always knew DK could do that ****, I just assumed there was something you could do to stop him that I wasn't aware of, cuz nobody ever talks about it. All anybody gives a **** about is MK's planking.

 

[Latias]

Lol, I always knew DK could do that ****, I just assumed there was something you could do to stop him that I wasn't aware of, cuz nobody ever talks about it. All anybody gives a **** about is MK's planking.

he grabbed the ledge at least 100 times, and seeing as rich couldnt really do anything (fmash falling that far does like 6% and has no knockback pretty much)

 

[Life]

oli's dtilt hits DK out of his planking IIRC

 

[Skadorski]

Couldn't he have side-b'd purple pikmin?

It's better than just standing there doing nothing lol...

 

[#HBC | Joker]

With all the time he had, he had almost all purple pikmin too

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There are a couple of problems with the "Rich Brown" incident.

1. Even if Olimar has no easy outs to Donkey Kong's planking, DK is under much more technical pressure than Olimar is. As long as Rich is familiar with the technique (he wasn't) he could just pressure from a distance with Fsmash/Pikmin throw and wait for either a reaction that he can punish (Ledge Hop Uair) or for Will to mess up (this is almost inevitable).

tl;dr - Remember, planking is high risk:high reward, not low risk:high reward.

2. Lets change something up for a second. Lets say Will was using Ganondorf instead of Donkey Kong. He got completely camped to death by pivot grabs, pikmin throws and smashes. There was basically nothing he could do to win, despite match-up experience and skill. How many people would support an Olimar pivot grab limit?

If Ganondorf was top, or even mid tier and this tactic had never been done against him before, I can assure you that the situation would be the same as it is now.

tl;dr - People are biased towards "current" top tier characters and don't accept meta-game changes based on new techniques being used (planking).

Planking is gay, planking is gay as balls. So is Ike spamming Forward Smash if you don't know how to counter it. That's why we decided to get better. Removing planking now is just like if we banned Ike's fsmash when the game first came out. These things need time.

 

[Latias]

There are a couple of problems with the "Rich Brown" incident.

1. Even if Olimar has no easy outs to Donkey Kong's planking, DK is under much more technical pressure than Olimar is. As long as Rich is familiar with the technique (he wasn't) he could just pressure from a distance with Fsmash/Pikmin throw and wait for either a reaction that he can punish (Ledge Hop Uair) or for Will to mess up (this is almost inevitable).

tl;dr - Remember, planking is high risk:high reward, not low risk:high reward.

2. Lets change something up for a second. Lets say Will was using Ganondorf instead of Donkey Kong. He got completely camped to death by pivot grabs, pikmin throws and smashes. There was basically nothing he could do to win, despite match-up experience and skill. How many people would support an Olimar pivot grab limit?

If Ganondorf was top, or even mid tier and this tactic had never been done against him before, I can assure you that the situation would be the same as it is now.

tl;dr - People are biased towards "current" top tier characters and don't accept meta-game changes based on new techniques being used (planking).

Planking is gay, planking is gay as balls. So is Ike spamming Forward Smash if you don't know how to counter it. That's why we decided to get better. Removing planking now is just like if we banned Ike's fsmash when the game first came out. These things need time.

1.except the instant dk gets a stock lead, its game over for almost everyone that has a not that great recovery.

2. there was nothing rich could do to win either, except thats because dk is invincible the entire time except for 6 frames, and fsmash hitting that does around 5% damage has as much knockback as falcos jab and doesnt help him if dk has a stock lead.

As for the ganon thing, no, it wouldn't be. No reason to ban things integrated into characters movesets like smashes and grabs.



and yes planking is gay, and with the ledge grab limit its actually beatable. (less invincibility frames to actually do something, and will grabbed the ledge at least 100 times, i stopped counting halfway in and i was at 70) so a lgl of 40-50 is perfectly fine, and every region uses it ( even japan, and they're better at this game then us)


and one strategy isnt a meta game changer, its like having an insta kill move if you land kirbys jab on someone - thats what planking does to characters that cant recover, its an automatic loss. You can avoid ic grabs, d3 grab infinites (harder then ics, but doable and it has a percent limitation due to it being stalling) and planking is in essence - stalling. This is a fighting game not a 2 step process of get a lead and then hump the ledge

Couldn't he have side-b'd purple pikmin?

It's better than just standing there doing nothing lol...

he was throwing pikmin and smashes and at the end he tried to go down there and stop it, but .. lolnope

oli's dtilt hits DK out of his planking IIRC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIKEZblZJg
0:55, see the hitbubble, it doesnt go down at all, its horizontal, but if hes holding the ledge it can hit his fingers

 

[The Ben]

But stalling and defense strategies are considered legit in any other fighting game. Why not here?

 

[Latias]

But stalling and defense strategies are considered legit in any other fighting game. Why not here?

any other fighting game..? can you list all of them that are, I'm pretty sure its alot easier to stall in smash bros then in street fighter.

 

[The Ben]

This discussion again? It isn't about ease of strategy, it's about viability.

 

[Latias]

This discussion again? It isn't about ease of strategy, it's about viability.

Answer the stalling question about other fighting games first? Its legit in other games because its viable and not that hard to counter. In brawl its viable and hard/impossible to counter.

 

[The Ben]

I said is considered legit, as in nobody cares that stalling exists. SFxT, vanilla MVC3, Samurai Showdown, BlazBlue, and Shaq-Fu all come to mind.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

1.except the instant dk gets a stock lead, its game over for almost everyone that has a not that great recovery.

Incorrect. Any character with a projectile, or disjointed attack that hits at the correct angle can stop it.

i.e. Almost everyone.

2. there was nothing rich could do to win either, except thats because dk is invincible the entire time except for 6 frames, and fsmash hitting that does around 5% damage has as much knockback as falcos jab and doesnt help him if dk has a stock lead.

Eventually DK will get up to high enough percent to grab the ledge from him after hitting him with an Fsmash, and then ledge-hop aerial (using the invincibility) to KO.

No doubt you will theory-craft some reason why this doesn't work, but I'm not really interested.

As for the ganon thing, no, it wouldn't be. No reason to ban things integrated into characters movesets like smashes and grabs.

I love how you "countered" my main argument with such a simple statement.

DK's up-b isn't a part of his character? Did they not program grabbing the ledge? News to me.

Once again, no doubt you will come back with some subjective, arbitrary reason why it is different, and, once again; I'm not interested. This argument has happened a billion times, trust me, you won't bring up anything new.

and yes planking is gay, and with the ledge grab limit its actually beatable. (less invincibility frames to actually do something, and will grabbed the ledge at least 100 times, i stopped counting halfway in and i was at 70) so a lgl of 40-50 is perfectly fine, and every region uses it ( even japan, and they're better at this game then us)

Japan are better at the game because their good players are much closer to one another, they practice the **** out of the basics and possibly even better Wi-Fi connection. A LGL or stage list has very little to do with it, contrary to what you might hear.

And I simply have to say this... "If Japan jumped off a cliff, would you do it?"

and one strategy isnt a meta game changer, its like having an insta kill move if you land kirbys jab on someone - thats what planking does to characters that cant recover, its an automatic loss. You can avoid ic grabs, d3 grab infinites (harder then ics, but doable and it has a percent limitation due to it being stalling) and planking is in essence - stalling. This is a fighting game not a 2 step process of get a lead and then hump the ledge

Prove it.

he was throwing pikmin and smashes and at the end he tried to go down there and stop it, but .. lolnope

He didn't do it right.

He also completely forgot about Olimar's whistle, in retrospect.

any other fighting game..? can you list all of them that are, I'm pretty sure its alot easier to stall in smash bros then in street fighter.

Every single fighting game in existence, other than Smash. Smash is the only one with stalling limitations.

 

[WindMajor]

1.except the instant dk gets a stock lead, its game over for almost everyone that has a not that great recovery.

2. there was nothing rich could do to win either, except thats because dk is invincible the entire time except for 6 frames, and fsmash hitting that does around 5% damage has as much knockback as falcos jab and doesnt help him if dk has a stock lead.

As for the ganon thing, no, it wouldn't be. No reason to ban things integrated into characters movesets like smashes and grabs.



and yes planking is gay, and with the ledge grab limit its actually beatable. (less invincibility frames to actually do something, and will grabbed the ledge at least 100 times, i stopped counting halfway in and i was at 70) so a lgl of 40-50 is perfectly fine, and every region uses it ( even japan, and they're better at this game then us)


and one strategy isnt a meta game changer, its like having an insta kill move if you land kirbys jab on someone - thats what planking does to characters that cant recover, its an automatic loss. You can avoid ic grabs, d3 grab infinites (harder then ics, but doable and it has a percent limitation due to it being stalling) and planking is in essence - stalling. This is a fighting game not a 2 step process of get a lead and then hump the ledge








he was throwing pikmin and smashes and at the end he tried to go down there and stop it, but .. lolnope




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxIKEZblZJg
0:55, see the hitbubble, it doesnt go down at all, its horizontal, but if hes holding the ledge it can hit his fingers

Except for DK planking is not really that viable to begin with. In fact, the whole area of who can counter DK's planking is quite unexplored due to the LGL removing the need to find counters for it.

If we were to assume that Olimar actually has zero options against DK's planking, does that automatically mean that no character has any options against DK's planking? I'm almost sure that TL, Snake and Pikachu all have good options against DK planking

Spoiler

(and even if they don't, King Dedede is still legal. )

.

 

[DMG]

Every single fighting game in existence, other than Smash. Smash is the only one with stalling limitations.

Most fighting games have rules for specific stalling cases (usually a glitch involving momentum that makes the person incredibly hard/impossible to hit, recent example would be Street Fighter X Tekken Megaman stalling) because you don't need a "no stalling" rule if the broken stalling is taken care of through those.

But stalling and defense strategies are considered legit in any other fighting game. Why not here?

Beatable stalling and defensive strategies. Other fighting games don't like 1 hit run away win guaranteed/near guaranteed or press this sequence of buttons and actions and bam invincible/untouchable. Planking being legal for most of the cast does NOT boil down to that, but gameplay would inherently focus predominantly over the edge to an unhealthy point.

 

[popsofctown]

How does someone think a single tournament video of a single example of a tactic being used successfully is evidence that the tactic is unbeatable?

I should post a video of Lain beating M2K and insist that the ICs chaingrab is unbeatable because a skilled player beat a skilled player with it, and we can only assume that M2K did everything 100% correctly to counter the tactic. And then ban the ICs chaingrab.

That is literally how stupid people who repost the Rich Brown video are. They can't realize how dumb they are because they think planking is "gay", just like laser camping is in a casual household. Learn to beat it

Seriously if the LGL stays I want the ICs to get a grab limit because it sucks as much pleasure out of the game for me as planking would for you and there is an equal amount of tournament evidence demonstrating that an unrestricted number of grabs for Ice Climbers is unbeatable. Ice Climbers have more tournament wins chaingrabbing than DK does planking.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Bad logic cause a lot of the people who think there should be a LGL also think ICs infinites should be banned xD

Noobs, gotta love 'em

 

[Cassio]

rofl, that video has turned into the M2K vs Gnes of planking.

Honestly at this point its a practical matter, therefore theres little hope of the lgls removal. If the URC removed it it wouldnt really help since people would just drop unity. Its not like the ruleset ever followed any form of logic or consistency anyways.

 

[popsofctown]

Bad logic cause a lot of the people who think there should be a LGL also think ICs infinites should be banned xD

Noobs, gotta love 'em

No, they don't. Most of them are not Arcansis. They just don't realize how scrub mentality about this particular issue.

@Cassio - The regions that would drop Unity because it lacked an LGL are the same regions that won't really take part in a unified ruleset anyway. TOs like the one in Texas that banned the IC infinite after a string of IC wins are unlikely to follow the Unity ruleset through an unpopular character ban, or legal stage, or what have you, they clearly don't care the least bit about what everyone else is doing.
Some regions might soft ban planking and keep Unity and that gets the job done. Or they might run Unity with an LGL as the only difference so their players can do well if they travel.

A ruleset that does nothing at all besides please the populace heads to ruin. It will restrict every unpopular minority until everyone has taken a hit, and no one wants to play anymore.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I honestly think they might still have the LGL rule because they know MK will eventually be legalized again, and they don't want to forget to re-add the LGL rule when that happens.

 

[theunabletable]

Seriously if the LGL stays I want the ICs to get a grab limit because it sucks as much pleasure out of the game for me as planking would for you and there is an equal amount of tournament evidence demonstrating that an unrestricted number of grabs for Ice Climbers is unbeatable. Ice Climbers have more tournament wins chaingrabbing than DK does planking.

I'd like to point out that I'm preeeeetty sure I haven't seen any videos of Will at a tournament that has no LGL since that happened. Pretty much every tournament since then, that I've seen, has had one lol.

Further, you are completely free to make an ICs grab limit if it sucks as much pleasure out of the game as planking does for everyone else (I doubt it does, but w/e). If you can get a TO behind you, and a community to agree that will benefit from an ICs grab limit, go ahead.

I bet you don't have all of those, but if you do, it's perfectly fine for you to do so. There are zero reasons why that'd be bad if you had all of those ingredients.

Considering all the drama from large parts of the community every time there's a large tournament without an LGL (like SiN, or Whobo 3), I doubt you'll find many communities that will, and it would be a death sentence to the unity ruleset. Most people just don't want planking to be a viable strategy, the game is gay enough as it is lol.

Japan are better at the game because their good players are much closer to one another, they practice the **** out of the basics and possibly even better Wi-Fi connection. A LGL or stage list has very little to do with it, contrary to what you might hear.

And I simply have to say this... "If Japan jumped off a cliff, would you do it?"

Surely the fact that they don't care to put up with people spending 10 bull**** minutes on the ledge, and want to actually play the game/practice the basics contributes to their mastery of the basics, and their mindset, to some extent.

I mean, we don't have to do everything Japan does, but the statement "If Japan jumped off a cliff, would you do it?" doesn't completely counter any claim that Japan might have it right.

1. Even if Olimar has no easy outs to Donkey Kong's planking, DK is under much more technical pressure than Olimar is.

No lol. The technical pressure to stop it and get back the lead from that position is much higher than Donkey Kong mixing up his jumps based on what he sees Olimar doing.

As long as Rich is familiar with the technique (he wasn't) he could just pressure from a distance with Fsmash/Pikmin throw

That wouldn't have worked, those attacks have like no knockback growth, and Will had a stock lead lol.

And further, that just doesn't seem like a game worth playing.

No doubt you will theory-craft some reason why this doesn't work, but I'm not really interested.

man you can't just post **** theorycraft in response to practical results, then refuse to be interested in countertheorycraft or refutation

Once again, no doubt you will come back with some subjective, arbitrary reason why it is different, and, once again; I'm not interested. This argument has happened a billion times, trust me, you won't bring up anything new.

Subjectivity IS the difference. In a community dictated by people, abstraction exists as an ingredient just as much as anything material or objective. That people want it to be gone is why it's different than everything else.

But stalling and defense strategies are considered legit in any other fighting game. Why not here?

Because, largely, people don't like planking. People don't want to put up with it, but they enjoy a Brawl minus planking. The community wants there to be no planking, so we hold competitions to test the skills that don't involve planking.

I can't see any issues with that what-so-ever. BlazBlue players could play Brawl if they wanted to, though, and change all the rules around as they see fit for them. Different communities might want different things

 

[T0MMY]

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.

This is the only argument that proponents of %-based wins have, these proponents are generally not caught up to date on why their argument is already dead and buried. So, here's the update for you:
1) Does not "really" solve stock differentials
2) Doesn't "really" change the timeout scenario
3) Gives the player "losing" (by percent) an incentive to time out.

1) a. The misleading part of this premise is that it assumes stock differences are just as as bad as %-based differences. This is completely, utterly, and obviously untrue -- quit assuming it ASAP. Let's take a closer look why:
One high-priority, low-risk attack gives a %-lead (think Mach Tornado, or spamming U-airs on a platform edge). This kind of attack is nearly guaranteed to score a small % of damage early in the round, at which point the ENTIRE round will be stalled out.
Compare this to stock-lead -- In a worst-case-scenario when someone secures a stock-lead AND decides to stall out the round we would have the same problem. Therefore it may be a similar situation to the %-based decision but stalling would happen much less (rarely, if ever) and if it were to happen then it would be more likely to resolve within the realm of the two players' competition -- Proponents of %-based wins should welcome a BETTER modification of the very ruling they are defending...!
b. The above was a worse-case-situation; that is, it is a better alternative to %-based wins.
2) Glad you mentioned this, as this ruling was supposed to be in addition to further rules that REMOVE the motivation for stalling out matches. Remember, it is NOT the %-based rule that needs to be eliminated, it is the MOTIVATION to time people out that needs to be eliminated. For instance, a tied-stock game would NOT declare anyone a winner immediately, hence there is NO MOTIVATION to go to time and therefore "cheapness" does not happen.
3) Sorry, but why make the assumption that the player with more damage is "losing"? A character at 0% can (and has) been defeated by a character over 100% when the round is given the time to finish... it happens very frequently. Take, for instance, a match where Snake is at 99% vs Jigglypuff at 98%, if we had a crystal ball that foretold the future and it revealed Snake would defeat Jigglypuff with an U-Tilt within 30 seconds why is it that if the round's timer ended in 29 seconds we would award the Jigglypuff player the win for playing "gay" (running away, air camping, and scrooging) just because of the 1% difference (despite the fact Jigglypuff was U-Tilted and is being star-KO'd into the background right when time runs out).

You eventually need a win condition to settle endless rematches however. Going to Sudden Death is awful, that should not even be considered ever

Before we start working with absolutes and being closed-minded to possible alternatives, we're going to need sound reason why we should never consider Sudden Death.
Not advocating Sudden Death at this point, just saying we shouldn't be so quick to be closed-minded, working with absolutes, and casting blind eyes to alternatives without reason. Until proper reason is given, it will still be an option for a TO to use.

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.

Let's examine this logic.
1) We can't sit here and say rematch until that [a tie] doesn't happen
2) The % rule is fine if you also hit stalling.
3) If stalling is not happening then the argument that people can abuse the % rule is false.
4) Enforcing the no stalling rule in broader and stricter ways would fix everything.

1) Any assumption/statement/declaration made MUST be supported with sound reason, evidence, etc. or it will be ignored. So, why not rematch until a win is determined? Keep in mind a rematch of sorts is acceptable in many competitive sports... even if (theoretically) it could go on FOREVER (because in practicality it will NOT go on forever).
2) How convenient... The %-based rule also increases the likelihood of stalling/time-outs/cheap tactics (it is the motivational factor!). It's fine if we hit stalling, and we are also promoting it so we are more likely to see stalling, so it justifies itself! This is a circular fallacy.
3) Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. This is the logic that people had prior to Plank vs SK92 at Axis... until it did happen. Regardless, it has happened, does happen, and will happen, and this isn't some mere coincidence, there is REASONS for it happening, those reasons can be addressed, and further situations will cease IF WE SO CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING.
4) First off, the rule "no stalling" is not used in many rulesets, I've looked at many, many, MANY rulesets and very few had this clause... so there is nothing to enforce to begin with.
Secondly, the major problem with this assumption is simply overlooking the ENFORCEABILITY behind "no stalling". Even if every single ruleset had the rule it would be nearly impossible to enforce. In fact there was a SoCal tourney that actually put this rule into their ruleset and actively tried to enforce it. What happened was a headache for the TO, with the inclusion of this rule players then attempted to use the "no stalling" rule to DQ their opponent for spending too much time in the air, too much time on the ledge, and not actively engaging the opposition... it was a disaster and I believe the TO left the area and essentially left it up to the players to squabble over the details and the rule hasn't been used since to my knowledge (I believe it was settled by something to do with the person driving the carpool saying he would not drive somewhere if conditions were not met).

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.

The game itself.
I agree, the game's design should be the ultimate decision unless an unforeseen problem breaks the game. So let's look at the situation with that in mind a little deeper.
Assuming the Pokemon Stadium screen is accurate (though there is no evidence for that) and there is a stock-tie and a %-lead (let's say Player 1 has 0% and Player 2 has 100% damage) then what happens when the time runs out? Does Player 1 win due to stock lead?
No.
It goes to Sudden Death.
So, if we are to allow the game to decide then IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME %-BASED WINS.

I agree with Keitaro and t0mmy (note: my name is not capitalized and has been edited). 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.

Again, if an assumption/statement/etc. is made there needs to be evidence to back it up or the assumption will be ignored. So, why would removing %-based tie-breakers require keeping LGLs?

Who says that they are losing when they have lower stock?
Certainly not Lucario.

The designers of the game do.
The code the designers of the original rules do.
The game does.
If the game ends with Lucario having less stock than his opponent then he loses, THE GAME GOES TO THE VICTORY SCREEN WHERE IT WILL SHOW LUCARIO'S OPPONENT AS THE WINNER -- don't believe me? Check it out for yourself and post what you find.

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

There's a difference between tournament rules being set and agreed upon prior to playing (brackets, best of X rounds, stocks instead of timers, items off, etc). and arbitrarily changing the fundamental design the developers programmed into the game.
We as tournament players have all the right to change the way the TOURNAMENT is run, but it should never be our decision how the game plays (unless under extreme conditions, which is a topic unto itself).
The game designers allowed us to toggle on/off stages, items, etc., but they do not allow us to use game settings to declare a player the winner based on ledge grabs, air time, Bowser killing himself, how many doughnuts were eaten before noon, or who has the most elegant beard.
Work within our realm of tournament organizers who give their players a competitive arena to play in with other competitive-minded individuals; stop playing god with the game itself.

Bad logic cause a lot of the people who think there should be a LGL also think ICs infinites should be banned xD

Noobs, gotta love 'em

You are one of the only sensible person here.
Although it's not noobs that are the problem, it's the scrubs. There's a difference.

 

[Cassio]

Assuming the Pokemon Stadium screen is accurate (though there is no evidence for that) and there is a stock-tie and a %-lead (let's say Player 1 has 0% and Player 2 has 100% damage) then what happens when the time runs out? Does Player 1 win due to stock lead?
No.
It goes to Sudden Death.
So, if we are to allow the game to decide then IT IS WRONG TO ASSUME %-BASED WINS.

I think I worded my example poorly. I meant that when my percent is higher than my opponents, occasionally Ive seen myself on the marquee as the current leader.

Again, if an assumption/statement/etc. is made there needs to be evidence to back it up or the assumption will be ignored. So, why would removing %-based tie-breakers require keeping LGLs?

I didnt say it would require keeping them.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'd like to point out that I'm preeeeetty sure I haven't seen any videos of Will at a tournament that has no LGL since that happened. Pretty much every tournament since then, that I've seen, has had one lol.

Further, you are completely free to make an ICs grab limit if it sucks as much pleasure out of the game as planking does for everyone else (I doubt it does, but w/e). If you can get a TO behind you, and a community to agree that will benefit from an ICs grab limit, go ahead.

I bet you don't have all of those, but if you do, it's perfectly fine for you to do so. There are zero reasons why that'd be bad if you had all of those ingredients.

Considering all the drama from large parts of the community every time there's a large tournament without an LGL (like SiN, or Whobo 3), I doubt you'll find many communities that will, and it would be a death sentence to the unity ruleset. Most people just don't want planking to be a viable strategy, the game is gay enough as it is lol.

Our arguments come from two different worlds, you believe that rules should be 100% dictated by the community, I believe that rules should be dictated by a set of logical, competitive guidelines.

So the only thing worth debating here is which of these methods is better aha

Surely the fact that they don't care to put up with people spending 10 bull**** minutes on the ledge, and want to actually play the game/practice the basics contributes to their mastery of the basics, and their mindset, to some extent.

I mean, we don't have to do everything Japan does, but the statement "If Japan jumped off a cliff, would you do it?" doesn't completely counter any claim that Japan might have it right.

We've had a LGL for some time and we still lost to Japan though xD

No lol. The technical pressure to stop it and get back the lead from that position is much higher than Donkey Kong mixing up his jumps based on what he sees Olimar doing.

Have you ever planked against someone or been planked?

The fear of losing your stock at any moment is a lot more prominent than the fear of "Oh no! I only have 5 minutes to KO this guy and rack up some percentage."

That wouldn't have worked, those attacks have like no knockback growth, and Will had a stock lead lol.

Already covered this

man you can't just post **** theorycraft in response to practical results, then refuse to be interested in countertheorycraft or refutation

Practical results? I see a "practical" result against someone who has never encountered the tactic before and may be one of the worst characters at beating it.

Subjectivity IS the difference. In a community dictated by people, abstraction exists as an ingredient just as much as anything material or objective. That people want it to be gone is why it's different than everything else.

Because, largely, people don't like planking. People don't want to put up with it, but they enjoy a Brawl minus planking. The community wants there to be no planking, so we hold competitions to test the skills that don't involve planking.

I can't see any issues with that what-so-ever. BlazBlue players could play Brawl if they wanted to, though, and change all the rules around as they see fit for them. Different communities might want different things

This is why I like talking to you, different view point to everything else. Makes me actually think instead of just saying the same thing over and over again with no one listening lol

The designers of the game do.
The code the designers of the original rules do.
The game does.
If the game ends with Lucario having less stock than his opponent then he loses, THE GAME GOES TO THE VICTORY SCREEN WHERE IT WILL SHOW LUCARIO'S OPPONENT AS THE WINNER -- don't believe me? Check it out for yourself and post what you find.

Since when have we respected the game designer's wishes and given them ANY merit in tournaments?

The designers of the game also put in Sudden Death, which we don't use despite it being the game's default tie breaker.

My point stands: There is no objective way of figuring out who was winning, there is only the winner and the loser. So all tie-break rules are equally valid in that respect, regardless of what Pokemon Stadium's screen wants you to believe.

You are one of the only sensible person here.
Although it's not noobs that are the problem, it's the scrubs. There's a difference.

I'm flattered

I was watching your Melee teams combo video with t!mmy today, I have a pocket Kirby so I'm going to try some of your stuff with my Puff team-mate :D

 

[DMG]

Sudden Death is a terrible option to use because doing a regular rematch suits the purpose better. There's no scenario where Sudden Death is preferred or a better idea than doing a regular rematch (or also doing a rematch with %'s starting off close/exactly what they were when the match went to time). I saved time and said it Sudden Death wasn't worth it without going into an indepth analysis of why Sudden Death is inferior, because it's generally understood even by regular players that there's no merit to actually using it when you have superior alternatives. If I have to sit here and explain just how bad it really is or else be labeled close minded, then I'm pretty damn closed minded with all of the fairly obviously understood general stuff I talk about. It'd be one thing to explain further if I supported the idea that using % rule was always the best/only option, but cmon dude this is Sudden Death. lol. Would be like someone saying I'm not open to the idea that Wario might be bad on RC because all I talk about is hey Wario's pretty good on RC, when there's no magical secret connection or blank I'm missing and everyone gets what I'm talking about lol

 

[Cassio]

The point of sudden death is that its what the game itself dictates, or that we get close to it. And if I felt like searching for them I could pull quotes from notable persons like AZ and Kietaro thinking its a worthwhile option, so its not exactly that far out there so much as community preference. Its been used by the Japanese as well.

 

[theunabletable]

Our arguments come from two different worlds, you believe that rules should be 100% dictated by the community, I believe that rules should be dictated by a set of logical, competitive guidelines.

So the only thing worth debating here is which of these methods is better aha

Nah, not 100% dictated by the community exactly, but 100% dictated FOR the community. It's not inconceivable that a community might not know what's best for it. Although largely they do, especially because people who are a part of a small community will know what'll work best for it better than outsiders will.

So there can certainly be exceptions, but usually there aren't, and I can't think of many potential ones.

I can't see the point of having rule dictated by a set of equally logical guidelines if that means that the game isn't played by as many, or enjoyed as much, and the community is hurt because of it. It's no less arbitrary fundamentally, and it's no better in final results. I can't see the use of it lol.

We've had a LGL for some time and we still lost to Japan though xD

Oh, yeah definitely. The effect is probably small, but it does effect player's mindsets at least a little bit. Probably a bit negligible, but you never know

Have you ever planked against someone or been planked?

The fear of losing your stock at any moment is a lot more prominent than the fear of "Oh no! I only have 5 minutes to KO this guy and rack up some percentage."

Whenever I plank or time people out with MK, I usually do it because it feels less scary than actually fighting them lol.

There's just not a lot of things Olimar can do that would cause DK to instantly lose his stock if he messes up.

Practical results? I see a "practical" result against someone who has never encountered the tactic before and may be one of the worst characters at beating it.

Maybe practical wasn't the right word lol. I'm just saying it's silly to respond to a video with pure theorycraft that doesn't have a video example to go with it, and refuse to see counter-theorycraft. Like if you're stooping to using theorycraft, you're not gonna accomplish anything if you don't allow anyone to debate the theorycraft you used lol.

This is why I like talking to you, different view point to everything else. Makes me actually think instead of just saying the same thing over and over again with no one listening lol

Yeah haha. Problems are much better solved at the fundamental differences, instead of at the surface where none of the basics are attacked lol.


Alright, I suppose this is the best question to ask in this situation. What is your most fundamental foundation for your ruleset philosophy? What goal is it trying to achieve, and why is that a worthwhile goal?

 

[The Ben]

Sudden Death is a terrible option to use because doing a regular rematch suits the purpose better. There's no scenario where Sudden Death is preferred or a better idea than doing a regular rematch (or also doing a rematch with %'s starting off close/exactly what they were when the match went to time). I saved time and said it Sudden Death wasn't worth it without going into an indepth analysis of why Sudden Death is inferior, because it's generally understood even by regular players that there's no merit to actually using it when you have superior alternatives. If I have to sit here and explain just how bad it really is or else be labeled close minded, then I'm pretty damn closed minded with all of the fairly obviously understood general stuff I talk about. It'd be one thing to explain further if I supported the idea that using % rule was always the best/only option, but cmon dude this is Sudden Death. lol. Would be like someone saying I'm not open to the idea that Wario might be bad on RC because all I talk about is hey Wario's pretty good on RC, when there's no magical secret connection or blank I'm missing and everyone gets what I'm talking about lol

So you can't explain why sudden death is bad?