Irrelevant. Replace 50/50 with any other MU number that differs from the standard MU number (excluding your surgical rules, that is) and my point still stands.
Except no. Some characters counter others and this is ok. There are small imbalances in matchups and this is ok.
Larger things cross the line.
Wait... what?
You wanted to enforce a tilt limit for the Jigglypuff/Snake MU, even if that is exactly on the line you are drawing, that still allows for a ****-ton of surgical rules.
Face it mate, your philosophy is flawed.
In an optimal world? Yeah I would support it, because I know people would be reasonable and be open minded and welcome change that pushes our game in a positive direction.
In the real world? I would object due to knowledge of the community. I support the notion, just not in our current situation.
Also I never said I wanted to enforce one. And don't tell me my philosophy is flawed, because I don't even think you know it. (Or atleast, that's what this post seems to indicate, no offence.)
...I think you meant MK's infinite dimensional cape...not M2K's
Anyway if he had that even without stalling capabilities he'd be the most broken character in any fighting game.
No, not at all. Also interactions between games aren't doable without knowledge of how to deal with all the finite things. (see: Street Fighter vs Brawl = Life or Stocks? How much time?)
And they are faults, they're just necessary, otherwise people wouldn't play the game.
Having a competitive scene > Objectivity
I mean, Mario Bros is competitive...doesn't mean many people would go to a tournament with it legal (unless it was offering large prize pools)
This is a community opinion thing, something that we aren't arguing.
Unless people wouldn't play the game if they weren't allowed more then 3 regrabs, which I know won't happen.
Edit:
Again not really, just because Lucario gets boosts from being behind, doesn't mean that having more stocks makes him better.
I don't think it'd be hard to find lots of Lucario mains who would agree that the Snake match-up would be easier with 1 stock than with 3 stocks.
Because the way the match-up goes is, if Lucario dies first, then he's at low percent, and can't kill Snake until he's at like 80% because Snake's so heavy, and now Snake has a massive lead.
If Lucario dies first, Snake can still just kill him quickly, and won't be at that much of a disadvantage.
Lucario as a character being buffed doesn't mean all his matchups will be. Also, lots doesn't prove anything.
The way I see it, Smash Bros. is unplayable without some surgical rules.
Ok.
However, adding these rules needs to be warranted and consistent. The rules you are adding aren't really necessary to play the game, and introducing them results in a massive influx of double standard situations.
Many rules aren't necessary to play the game. There are already double standards.
This is nothing new concept wise. Also, it doesn't put in double standards, really. The way I see it, all the things you present are based on limiting a base action(that can be interacted with) of the character, whereas I am limiting something that cannot be interacted with and has a highly broken risk-reward ratio.
Does this make sense?
Oh and Arcansi, your 3 unavoidable grab limit is unenforceable when it comes to D3, due to how complex his standing chain-grab on Samus, Mario and Luigi is due to stale moves and pummelling.
And then there's "infinites" such as Ike's on Wario, where he must run and pivot grab afaik.
This leaves a chance of tripping, which makes the grabs 'avoidable' yea?
There is nothing the opposing player can do to avoid it. Therefore it is not avoidable.
How complex it is? Explain, you don't say anything that doesn't mean we can just see if he gets a regrab 4+ times in a row before the opponent would be able to react.
Hey Arcansi, when you completely change your position, how about some notice instead of posting **** that makes no sense compared to what you've said previously.
Do you read my posts? Are you aware of the fact that I did do this?
The rule has been amended to 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'
Credit to Jebus.
Also how does this:
"I could argue this would help us balance hte game out by giving falco more viable counters.
Balanced != everyone 50/50.
Don't assume all the options I have, please. You are not aware."
Make sense? Balanced = everyone 50/50... Ok. I just said limiting the cg makes match-ups that were previously 50/50 not so anymore. Also I thought the whole point was to get rid of counters, so why would you want more counters for falco? It seems that under your criteria for a competitive game, more even match-ups is optimal, so with what you're doing, you're eliminating some even match-ups and making a bunch of soft counters across the board. Is 0 even match-ups (but lots of soft counters) better than a few even match-ups?
Optimally in a zero-sum system it's actually the same. More or less soft counters makes for better or worse play depending on how the community sees character selection.
Also could you please present your full idea for a ruleset. It's becoming quite annoying when someone brings up a point and you say "don't assume my position." The very fact you have to say that shows how weak your position is... You're hiding behind a wall with an infinite amount of variations behind it. Present it, leave it out there, let us critique it, and if you have any defence you defend that position and that position only. If you are forced to change it, then you lose.
If I am forced to change it then I have learned from my mistake and know my old one was flawed.
I mean, I could make a whole new thread but that would be illogical. You shouldn't be working to take me down, you should be looking at seeing if any part of what im asking makes sense, and then seeing how you can improve on the part that does and remove the part that doesn't.
Arguments aren't binary in this situation.
Current Rule: 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'
ALSO: My full idea for a ruleset isn't being argued here. Note that me presenting such would require you guys presenting a ton of info too, and then the discussion being locked with only us as participants. Not a good thing.