CRASHiC a few pages back said:
whoa now, 25 to 30 is far too low. Let's take an assumption here, Marth is fighting DDD, what DDD loves to do in this matchup is keep Marth pinned down on the edge, build up damage, and explot Marth's trouble of getting back on stage against D3 (but he doens't chase him off stage). Now, in this matchup, should things for some time go as the D3 has planned, Marth will probably, and naturally be, over the 25 ledge grab limit. We can also bring up the many other situations in matches where this is likely to happen, where a character is trying to get back on stage with no viable way and keeps getting pushed back to the edge.
By limiting and putting a number on it, you are not banning it directly, but banning something that is involved with it since you can not ban it directly.
Except I'm talking about a LGL that applies solely to MK as a way to stop his stalling.
RocketPSIence said:
How is causing Falco, Diddy and Snake artificially boosted in their rankings b/c they have an amazing on stage game but lousy off stage game, but b/c of the LGL, characters like Gdubs are artificially hurt b/c they excel off stage and not totally on stage(although he isn't totally invincible like MK) fine?
How is causing Marth to be artificially boosted due to no MKs fair?
Have you ever even played a Meta Knight?
hint: going offstage is not something you want to do, unless you're playing, that's right, Meta Knight.
You're not going offstage to do what I'm talking about. Why would you sit there and allow MK to just hold on to the ledge without letting go, even when he doesn't have invincibility frames until he falls off automatically.
THAT is NOT planking.
DMG said:
Masky, I wish it was this simple. The problem is defining planking.
I agree. A ledge grab limit applying to MK solely for the purpose of stopping his planking that we can't otherwise define solves this, I think.
If so, now whenever they attempt these actions while maybe not being invincible or being more "beatable", then technically you are DQing them for using a good strategy, and not for stalling.
Meh something needs to be done about it, and I think any MK would rather choose to only be allowed to grab the ledge 20 times instead of having a character that WILL be banned.
You're entering pretty uncharted territory for a video game there. Why are we putting several rules in place specifically to limit MK (for techniques that haven't really been put to the test in tournament fully), when we could put in 50 other rules to bring the bottom tier up to par? We could have the perfectly balanced game!
Because looking at the data that DMG provided this is STALLING according to the SBR definition, but we have no way to really stop planking without a ledge grab limit.
A ledge grab limit would just be a way to enforce an already made rule.
And we should play with Punch Time XD
Tell me this: who will be the best character in the game if MK is banned?
Marth maybe? Doesn't he have good matchups against both Diddy and Snake?
It's unfair to the players who play only MK (like M2K who said he'd quit if MK got banned) to outright ban MK when an incredibly easy to enforce rule stops his stalling that we can't otherwise define, and it's unnecesary.
Tuen said:
Regardless, what about an MK only rule which states that if a match times out, MK loses?
I'd learn Wario JUST for the sole purpose of running away from MK the whole match without even attempting to make any contact or keep any sort of lead.
Oh and hey Tuen
Well, he's about as unviable as MK without surgical rules. Slightly less so, but only slightly. Are you understanding what I'm getting at? We have to nerf MK with a surgical rule, he is BROKEN. Ganon is broken too, but on the other end of the spectrum.
A ledge grab limit is just there to enforce a rule we already have. It isn't surgical, it's a means actually enforcing our rules instead of having a completely useless "no stalling" rule when planking, according to DMGs data, fits the SBR definition.
Banning MK when there is an easily enforced rule that stops something that is, according to the data, ALREADY AGAINST THE RULES, is completely unnecesary.