1. We have high level tournament matches of it apparently not being beatable (one of the most popular examples is against gnes, using diddy, who is very good at not getting timed out on the vast majority of stages). Other characters would be screwed even worse.
So we have an example of one high-level match where it was used effectively. However, when you say it's broken, you can't exactly reference one high-level match. It's like me pointing to a match where Dekar abuses single nanner locking to completely destroy his opponent and wins because of that. If the tactic is broken, why isn't it winning every tournament? Why isn't it winning every tournament match? Why hasn't M2K picked it up and started destroying everyone even more?
I'm aware it's a powerful tool in many of MK's harder matchups. The same way that Tornado is a powerful tool in matchups like Bowser or DK, the same way that marth's fair is powerful in matchups like Mario and Luigi. It isn't the only viable strategy (in fact, it's hard to find examples where it is used heavily with success in important matches, a good sign that
it's not as good as you think it is). It's a good strategy, but we haven't shown that it is broken or overcentralizing at the highest level of play and therefore a rule against it is unnecessary.
2. Those aren't the reasons for this proposed ruleset, those were just additional considerations some people raised that you're trying to use as the basis for your argument.
A consideration. Not the basis. The basis is, for the most part, the whole "completely unnecessary and stupid" point.
3+4. People would still go to time in a 10 minute model, you just can't read. It's the consideration that players wouldn't want it to go to time due to a ground/air time rule. The argument is that matches wouldn't go to time if the ruleset was both a 10 minute timer AND the air/ground time rule. You keep bringing up ground-camping as opposition to this, but there is zero evidence that this could even happen. The only example I could even think of would be jiggs vs snake. However, because jiggs has no projectile and snake does she is the one forced to approach anyway in the current US ruleset. She'd have the additional 2 minutes to work with anyway, so in a way the ruleset could help her.
There is zero evidence that it would go to time often with a 10-minute timer without this rule. There's also zero reason why timing out is not a valid strategy. It has been a valid strategy in every fighting game up until now, with good reason. We have banned the strategies that allow timing out and remove all possibility of the opponent catching up to you (planking, scrooging (this is even debatably necessary and unproven), circle camping, excessively powerful stage positions like Corneria's fin). Therefore this is trying to remove a legitimate and non-overcentralizing (what % of high-level tournament matches go to time? Probably not even 50%. MK wins over 50% of all tournaments, that's not considered overcentralizing by this community) strategy to win the game under which premise?
The only one I've heard is "it makes more people show up because camping is gay". First of all that's so ridiculously subjective it's not even funny. Second of all there are far more gay things that have caused far more people to leave; what about the lack of hitstun; lets hack the game to add that because it made people leave. What about various chaingrabs, let's remove them because they made people say "this game is gay" and leave?
I don't know if this was mentioned yet or not, but I didn't notice a mention on whether or not the stock difference mattered. Of course, we don't want a jiggs at 3 stocks losing to a snake at 1 stock due to time, so it should probably only be implemented if the stocks are the same.
Yes, this should be cleared up.
I don't see how this would hurt aerial based characters unless you were TRYING to camp; that's the point of the 10 minute timer. If you can't finish a match on a stage that's not RC in under 10 minutes AND there is no incentive to time someone out, I just can't imagine a match taking that long unless neither player is approaching, which is just stupid.
There have been examples named. It's certainly possible, and it's realistically plausible. And you seem like you're thinking that only aerial characters could try to time out.
Closing thoughts: I'm not 100% dedicated to this ruleset and I'm probably overlooking some things, but I don't see why people are so vehemently against it without giving it a try. It sounds decent to me at the moment.
Eh, seeing as you just read my posts you probably know why and disagree.
BPC your not using your head please proofread your arguments in the future. YOU ALSO NEED TO STOP TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR POINTS VIA SIRLIN IDEALS however yes I can't expect them to not play optimal. Camping with a projectile and running away are (while both defensive by nature) are different things. When you ask running away for the whole match and then state throwing projectiles shows me that you have no concrete way of defending your points.
Not really.
When I run away with the lead, I am taking an advantageous position (having the lead) that I earned (by fighting you until I had the lead) and abusing it (by trying to keep this lead until the time runs out, a legitimate strategy). It is also completely beatable in most matchups.
When I camp with projectiles, I am taking an advantageous position (having a strong, spammable projectile) that I earned (by selecting a character with a strong spammable projectile) and abusing it (by throwing junk at you and hoping you **** up your powershielding). It is also completely beatable in most matchups.
Both are strong defensive strategies. Both involve me abusing an advantageous position I have. Both are completely beatable. The difference between the two is obviously there, but why does it make it bannable not to have hitboxes going towards my opponent?
Running away the whole match so that you are no longer fighting is in fact stalling.
...oh. That's why. Because stalling (making the game unplayable) can be achieved by running away.
However you cannot PROVE its stalling, but the majority of people will agree that running the timer intentionally is blatantly stalling it cannot be proven.
How wide is your definition of stalling? And why is it necessary to ban it?
in response to this people wish to create rules that prevent such stalling tactics from occurring. While I personally would rather discuss a better alternative to an airtime rule I do support a raised timer to reduce timeouts.
Also by your definition of you get a better position on a stage you should always be able to abuse it is essentially supporting circle camping.
Yes. Except that I realize that if we allow circle camping, the competitive depth of brawl becomes so negligable that it is not a valuable competitive game any more. Pragmatism, if you will.
Circle camping is not stalling, believe it or not. Ask the BBR, I saw a really good post by someone on this (was it Shaya?). It doesn't make the game unplayable. What happens during circle camping is this:
1. Character X (fast) is in an advantaged position of having a lead on Character Y (slow). He proceeds to do whatever he can to keep this lead and puts a piece of the stage between him and character Y.
2. Character Y follows character X. Character X wants to keep his advantaged position, so he moves, again, to keep a piece of stage between him and character Y.
3. Repeat 2 ad nauseum.
It's not banned because it's stalling, it's banned because it's ridiculously overcentralizing and skews matchups ridiculous.
Stalling in brawl (and in melee) is actually ridiculously limited. We have...
-IDC
-Sonic's homing stall
-infinites
-various freeze glitches where the character freezes in midair, IIRC there was one with Diddy Hump
-Perfect Planking (the unbeatable variant
only; all other forms of planking are merely abusing a strong position. I could be even wrong about this one)
...and that's pretty much it. In melee it's just Peach Bomber stall and Rising Pound stall.
These tactics all go with the actual meaning of "stalling". Which is not "trying to run the clock"; that's playing stupidly safe, campy, and defensively, and sometimes running away. It's "Makes the game effectively unplayable", which is banned for overcentralization (you get your opponents with one of these stalls, and the game is
over in most cases).
What's your definition of stalling, and why is such a massive blanket ban on any tactic based on running the clock necessary?
after all if I have the lead why shouldn't I stall by circle camping the whole match. By your discussed ideals your are actually supporting such game play mechanics. So then tell me WHY SHOULDN'T circle camping be legal. After all you have opposed a LGL which prevents metaknight to do the exact same thing for 8 minutes why shouldn't any character with a decent mobility be allowed to time someone out via circle camping?
Just did, look up. And also, I opposed LGLs as a concept; I have changed my stance to that that it is a bad rule, but a completely necessary one. You can't have
i do name search rofl.
and honestly, i am trying to find motivation to play brawl right now. all my goals are complete, or at least realistically for this game. im gonna have to find new ones, otherwise im just gonna **** around wit falco and enjoy the community.
w/e i move to EU soon anyway, so hopefully ill be renewed there
Go to germany, it's great here. Bavaria is probably the very best place in the world.