Should Planking (i.e. Ledgestalling) be Banned?

[Plairnkk]

Don't worry about NEO, he will complain about anything until the game ends up only being Marth dittos on his favorite neutral.

 

[illinialex24]

Unban stages that make planking, limited or undoable. Problem solved.
Simply don't play "neutral" stages against a planker.

Then King Dedede can **** 50% of the roster without even trying.....

 

[1048576]

You can hit a wallbombomg Peach too.

It's not stalling, she's just putting herself in an advantageous position, whatever that means.

Show me vids of a Peach winning with this tactic.

**** scrubs want to ban wallbombing

Several characters can do something about it.

 

[Steel]

Don't worry about NEO, he will complain about anything until the game ends up only being Marth dittos on his favorite neutral.

I LOL'd pretty hard XD

Though to stay on topic I'm pretty neutral about this, though I never had it happen to me in tournament yet.

 

[CaliburChamp]

Then King Dedede can **** 50% of the roster without even trying.....

That idea is overated. It's just like saying the IC are top tier because they have a 0-death chain grab. Seriously, just don't get grabbed.

 

[Melomaniacal]

That idea is overated. It's just like saying the IC are top tier because they have a 0-death chain grab. Seriously, just don't get grabbed.

Are you kidding?

 

[illinialex24]

That idea is overated. It's just like saying the IC are top tier because they have a 0-death chain grab. Seriously, just don't get grabbed.

Are you ****ing kidding me? King Dedede has the longest normal quick grab range in the game, meaning he can pull it out whenever and it leads to a kill if we allow this. You can't continuously avoid getting grabbed by King Dedede, you will eventually get grabbed unless your MK. There is a reason why King Dedede has 100-0 and 95-5 matchups. He has standing infinites and people can't avoid getting grabbed. They allow 1 walkoff edge and people who can get chaingrabbed by him ban it if they can so its fair. However, this would likely make him the best character or second best easily.

Are you kidding?

Exactly.

 

[XienZo]

Xien, the difference is that the planker can actually be hit. And sure, you might be able to get an attack in at the guy running around the stage, but you really shouldn't. With Planking, you can actually hit the person. You may put yourself in a bad position with half the cast, but you can still hit them.

Shouldn't? At what point does it become "shouldn't be hit?" Is there a line between planking and gliding under the stage? We can have inbetweens too- plank for 2,3,4,20 grabs before gliding/HA/pounding to the other side. At what level on invulnerability does it become "shouldn't be hit"?

Seriously, just play a handful of characters that don't get CGed.

Fix'd

 

[illinialex24]

Shouldn't? At what point does it become "shouldn't be hit?" Is there a line between planking and gliding under the stage? We can have inbetweens too- plank for 2,3,4,20 grabs before gliding/HA/pounding to the other side. At what level on invulnerability does it become "shouldn't be hit"?

Yeah you can hit opponents running around the stage. Your vulnerable.

 

[XienZo]

Yeah you can hit opponents running around the stage. Your vulnerable.

Well, in context, it meant either under stages or in banned stages like hyrule temple. If you still believe that they're vulnerable in that situation, then why is gliding under stages and big stages banned while planking isn't?

 

[illinialex24]

Well, in context, it meant either under stages or in banned stages like hyrule temple. If you still believe that they're vulnerable in that situation, then why is gliding under stages and big stages banned while planking isn't?

Well I mean planking isn't that vulnerable, and not really at all as MK or G&W, but on Hyrule neither is running or hiding in the bottom after a kill, which is why its banned. In any tournament stage, running leaves you vulnerable. So lets only mention that.

 

[XienZo]

Well I mean planking isn't that vulnerable, and not really at all as MK or G&W, but on Hyrule neither is running or hiding in the bottom after a kill, which is why its banned. In any tournament stage, running leaves you vulnerable. So lets only mention that.

Well, the point is that Hyrule was banned because it allowed players to become "invulnerable" to an extent and stall although you could still "technically" hit them, not unlike planking(or HA stalling or gliding under stages or pound stalling, which are all banned), so why isn't planking banned if it does the same thing?

 

[illinialex24]

Well, the point is that Hyrule was banned because it allowed players to become "invulnerable" to an extent and stall although you could still "technically" hit them, not unlike planking(or HA stalling or gliding under stages or pound stalling, which are all banned), so why isn't planking banned if it does the same thing?

Because it allows you to live to ridiculously high percentages and camp out, plus the stage is so big horizontal KO's are non existant.

 

[XienZo]

Because it allows you to live to ridiculously high percentages and camp out, plus the stage is so big horizontal KO's are non existant.

Yeah, I suppose Hyrule was banned for other reasons as well. However, there were still stages that were banned mostly due to "loops", such as Hanenbow, Spear Pillar(blue background), and others. How about them?

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, I suppose Hyrule was banned for other reasons as well. However, there were still stages that were banned mostly due to "loops", such as Hanenbow, Spear Pillar(blue background), and others. How about them?

Spear Pillar was banned for many other reasons. It has lasers that can't be avoided if your stuck in the wrong spot (if your in the middle when the one rips through the bottom), it has very crazy special effects, and it also has a very bad background.

Hanenbow was banned because you can essentially gimp any limited recovery there I believe. Like try recovering as Link from below. Its like impossible because you hit the platforms up and the other person can do the same so you can't get back up.

 

[XienZo]

Spear Pillar was banned for many other reasons. It has lasers that can't be avoided if your stuck in the wrong spot (if your in the middle when the one rips through the bottom), it has very crazy special effects, and it also has a very bad background.

You can shield the laser. If you make sure you have the blue background when you start, the only special effect is slow-motion Brawl. I suppose we can't do much about the bad background though.

Hanenbow was banned because you can essentially gimp any limited recovery there I believe. Like try recovering as Link from below. Its like impossible because you hit the platforms up and the other person can do the same so you can't get back up.

I don't think that was as strong of a reason, since FD gimps tons of recoveries as well. Also note that its suggested legal in doubles, where you obviously can't stall by running but Link still gets gimped unless your partner's fairly close by.

Also, what about the various other stalls?

 

[illinialex24]

You can shield the laser. If you make sure you have the blue background when you start, the only special effect is slow-motion Brawl. I suppose we can't do much about the bad background though.

But your generally fighting so you can't really just easily do it and your shield is likely slightly weakened already.

I don't think that was as strong of a reason, since FD gimps tons of recoveries as well. Also note that its suggested legal in doubles, where you obviously can't stall by running but Link still gets gimped unless your partner's fairly close by.

Also, what about the various other stalls?

Hanebow is much different though and much more extreme.

 

[deepseadiva]

Both Spear Pillar and Hanenbow are both banned for reasons of circling.

Not as much because of the lasers and the odd edges.

 

[LoyalSoldier]

Both Spear Pillar and Hanenbow are both banned for reasons of circling.

Not as much because of the lasers and the odd edges.

I think overall they are banned because they just flat out suck for competition.

 

[illinialex24]

I think overall they are banned because they just flat out suck for competition.

Although its true so does Corneria and other stages. They don't ban stages for that reason.

 

[thrillagorilla]

*Sigh*

Let me make something clear about my own position. I am personally against any ban. Meta-Knight, planking, etc. I agree with the idea of playing the game as is. I wasn't making the argument for my own sake. I was trying to make it for the ~72.5% of the community that DOES have a problem with it, and I agree to the solution I proposed if the argument remains as is, if only so people can get back to playing.

This game has so many ways that you can play it, its absurd. To keep things simple the community has adopted rules to make things simpler. Among these rules is a rule against stalling. Note, the game doesn't have any rule against stalling, we as a community do. This is where I begin to have problems with the people that are arguing against expanding the definition of a rule that already exists. They already have rules in place that were made by them, but don't want to see those rules change as the way the community plays the game progresses. It's ridiculous. The game didn't set the timer. It has the option so that we can use it if we want to, and we use it. There are always unforeseen problems that arise from us putting limits on a game. We as a community are trying to adapt within the guidelines that we have already set for ourselves. I will say it again. Planking is stalling as we have described it. It is attempting to avoid conflict by running out the timer and end the game in a condition favorable to the planker, AKA ending gameplay. Beatable (which it is) or no, it is what it is. There are a few simple ways out of this mess.

1. We ban planking. Again, I'm not in favor of it but most of the community is (if the poll is an accurate representation). This is the simplest solution because it is the most popular, hence why I argued for it.

2. We redefine stalling. It could be as simple as defining what "better positioning" is (another quick-fix I would more than happily accept), or it could be as difficult as re-defining the term entirely. That would up to the BR and/or the community at large to decide.

3. We eliminate the ban on stalling entirely. By our current rule-set as was quoted by adumbrodeus earlier (thank you for posting the link, by the way. I found it most helpful. I'm not being sarcastic, so I'm sorry if it sounds that way ), this would mean that DDDs would gain a large tactical boon, as well as some other character tactics but then again, this is part of the game mechanic and can be adapted to. It would be no different then having to deal with IC's 0-death CGs.

To close out my thoughts, I would like to say that Brawl is practically a different game than Melee. It is defensive based, so rules that were created that worked well in Melee may not work the same way in Brawl. We as a community need to accept it or change it.

 

[infomon]

I'm not in favor of it but most of the community is (if the poll is an accurate representation).

It isn't. At all. Never be fooled by these polls; the vast majority of even SWF'ers don't see them. Tons of us stay in our regional zones; average through excellent players who regularly compete at smashfests or tournaments, or even visit the character boards for strats etc., but never see these silly poll threads in BTD/BGD. And then there are the tons of smashers who don't even use SWF.

Also, I don't see why decisions should ever be made on the basis of opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about. It's sad when a community is divided, yes. But making up crazy ban-rules for strats that have not been proven game-breaking, IMO, causes our community to be way more divided because it segregates us from all the people who aren't on these forums (much or at all).

 

[thrillagorilla]

Thanks for clarifying, infzy. I hope this conflict can come to a close sometime in the near future. It gnaws on me every time I see this thread in the latest post spot due to someone repeating a point that has already been made.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I still don't think the ledge grab rule bans planking at all. I know that the argument is that there is no reason to plank, it doesn't force an approach anymore, etc. But I'm not so sure about that. If you don't approach, I can stall more time with less grabs, so when the game times out and I haven't reached the grab limit (probably about 55), you lose. Thus, it becomes useful again. You approach because if you don't, the timer will run out easier without me even needing to repeatedly grab the ledge. Not to mention that it's pretty **** rare that someone breaks 50 grabs anyway, so it's still completely viable.
Or maybe I'm completely wrong, and the planker will just continue grabbing the ledge repetitively. Of course, that would be dumb, but whatever.
I think that the more familiar you become with what it takes to reach 50 ledge grabs, the easier it will be to plank without breaking the rule. If the rule was made standard, the first few weeks or months of it will probably be as most of you describe (planking becomes pointless), but as more people become more comfortable with the ledge grabs, I think planking will go back to the way it was, basically. Still, keep in mind that you can grab the ledge 100 times if you want, just make sure you end the match before the timer does.

It's one of those things that would need some testing, not just theorizing.

Basically, I still don't think the ledge grab rule bans planking.

 

[Eddie G]

Oh my god...

Decide already...

 

[Melomaniacal]

Seriously, haha. I don't really care what the backroom chooses to do (I'm cool with any decision), but I'm curious to see anyway. I've got $50 on do not ban. Works for me.

 

[adumbrodeus]

cool link, and thanks for the definition. However, I still see planking as an attempt by a player to make the game unplayable.

Even if they don't make the game unplayable [they don't], it is still an attempt at such. An attempt to run the clock. An attempt to stall out the clock. An attempt to stall.

Homing Stall is an attempt to make the game unplayable as well. Homing Stall is banned. Homing Stall and Planking both are attempts at stalling out the clock. I can see them both being banned, these are just the connections I've made. That said I'd think a ledge grab limit would be best.

/imo.

How's it an attempt to make the game unplayable?

You can still approach and attack a planker, it's just a powerful defensive position if anything.


And no, most planking matches don't result in the clock running out, generally they utilize the strategic advantage to force their opponent to approach and widen small leads into large ones, ultimately KOing their opponent.


Only a few characters can approach a homing stalling sonic however, and with most of those it guarantees death AND is stage-dependent.


Really, there's no way to set up an invincible stall position with planking, unlike homing stall. Your opponent can always go in and ruin your day. That's why it's camping and not stalling.

Planking is stalling as we have described it. It is attempting to avoid conflict by running out the timer and end the game in a condition favorable to the planker, AKA ending gameplay. Beatable (which it is) or no, it is what it is. There are a few simple ways out of this mess.

You mean as YOU (and others) have described it.

Not as it is banned, and I quoted the rules, and explained them.


No, whether it ostensibly "attempts" to end gameplay is irrelevant, because it FAILS, you have vulnerability, so I can always approach and ruin the planker's day. That makes it fail under the definition of planking that is banned.


It's just good (at least seems to be) at giving the planker the advantage when I approach.

And sure, you can just keep switching between edges, but you're more vulnerable to counter-attacks, it's more effective to deal with my approaches, then disengage when it's safe.

 

[Commander_Beef]

I vote for number three if this ledge grabbing only applies for Meta Knight. Or just ban it for Meta Knight only.

 

[MajinSweet]

*Sigh*

Let me make something clear about my own position. I am personally against any ban. Meta-Knight, planking, etc. I agree with the idea of playing the game as is. I wasn't making the argument for my own sake. I was trying to make it for the ~72.5% of the community that DOES have a problem with it, and I agree to the solution I proposed if the argument remains as is, if only so people can get back to playing.
This game has so many ways that you can play it, its absurd. To keep things simple the community has adopted rules to make things simpler. Among these rules is a rule against stalling. Note, the game doesn't have any rule against stalling, we as a community do. This is where I begin to have problems with the people that are arguing against expanding the definition of a rule that already exists. They already have rules in place that were made by them, but don't want to see those rules change as the way the community plays the game progresses. It's ridiculous. The game didn't set the timer. It has the option so that we can use it if we want to, and we use it. There are always unforeseen problems that arise from us putting limits on a game. We as a community are trying to adapt within the guidelines that we have already set for ourselves. I will say it again. Planking is stalling as we have described it. It is attempting to avoid conflict by running out the timer and end the game in a condition favorable to the planker, AKA ending gameplay. Beatable (which it is) or no, it is what it is. There are a few simple ways out of this mess.

Except planking can only run out the timer if the other player doesn't approach hence it is not stalling. It is camping. That is the difference. Planking doesn't halt game play in anyway. According to your logic, if I stand at one side of the stage, and the other person does the same...WE ARE STALLING OMG BAN IT! Seriously, you don't seem to have a grasp of these concepts. In Melee, if Peach is wallbombing at the bottom of a stage, your only option is to go down there, hit her, them make it back. Some times that just isn't possible. Thats the difference between this and stalling.

1. We ban planking. Again, I'm not in favor of it but most of the community is (if the poll is an accurate representation). This is the simplest solution because it is the most popular, hence why I argued for it.

When making bans like this, the best idea is usually NOT TO go with what is popular. If we did that a million things would have been banned already. Like effing Snake, then MetaKnight, Dededes down throw lolz.

2. We redefine stalling. It could be as simple as defining what "better positioning" is (another quick-fix I would more than happily accept), or it could be as difficult as re-defining the term entirely. That would up to the BR and/or the community at large to decide.

If your going to redefine a term so you can change a rule to make it "ok" then what the hell is the point? You might as well admit it and say "Ok, we shouldn't ban this but, where going to because we want to."

3. We eliminate the ban on stalling entirely. By our current rule-set as was quoted by adumbrodeus earlier (thank you for posting the link, by the way. I found it most helpful. I'm not being sarcastic, so I'm sorry if it sounds that way ), this would mean that DDDs would gain a large tactical boon, as well as some other character tactics but then again, this is part of the game mechanic and can be adapted to. It would be no different then having to deal with IC's 0-death CGs.

If you took away a ban on stalling, the Ice Climbers wouldn't even need to kill you. They could keep you in the grab FOREVER. Just stall out the timer and win with lower %. And don't even dare say take off the timer.

To close out my thoughts, I would like to say that Brawl is practically a different game than Melee. It is defensive based, so rules that were created that worked well in Melee may not work the same way in Brawl. We as a community need to accept it or change it.

You don't make rules to mold a game into something it's not. The only choice is accept it. Brawl is a campers game. If you don't like it play something else. Rules will not change this, people will find ways to camp because its the best tactic the game structure allows.
__________________

 

[thrillagorilla]

You mean as YOU (and others) have described it.

Not as it is banned, and I quoted the rules, and explained them.


No, whether it ostensibly "attempts" to end gameplay is irrelevant, because it FAILS, you have vulnerability, so I can always approach and ruin the planker's day. That makes it fail under the definition of planking that is banned.


It's just good (at least seems to be) at giving the planker the advantage when I approach.

And sure, you can just keep switching between edges, but you're more vulnerable to counter-attacks, it's more effective to deal with my approaches, then disengage when it's safe.

I agree with your point that planking can be beat. I said so in the post you quoted. Using your line of logic, DDDs infinite against a wall can be beat as well. Simply don't get grabbed. The same goes for using Sonic's homing attack under the stage. You can beat it if you are on the correct level, or if you are using a character that can attack with a projectile under the stage, like Pit. These tactics are banned, and yet there are ways around them. See, this is where the "it's beatable" line of logic fails. Besides, it's the intent behind the tactic that's the problem here, not the tactic itself.

2. We redefine stalling. It could be as simple as defining what "better positioning" is (another quick-fix I would more than happily accept), or it could be as difficult as re-defining the term entirely. That would up to the BR and/or the community at large to decide.

I read the rules, and they allow for you to go either way because "better positioning" is undefined, and the purpose of planking, successful or not, goes against the rest of the rule. That's why I posted this solution and its why I believe that no matter how this plays out, the rule needs to be revised. Example, if better positioning is defined in the rules and the ledge is one of those places, then planking is legal and no-one can argue about it. I'm honestly fine with that if its the best solution.

@MajinSweet: No need to get accusatory. I understand the concepts perfectly well. I also know that the rules can be interpreted in different ways, which is why this argument can be taking place at all. Also keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate. I argued both pro and anti-ban in the post you quoted. And yes, according to the current rule-set, standing still for extended periods of time is banned because it is stalling. You are avoiding conflict. Its ridiculous, but it CAN be interpreted that way. That is why the rule needs revision.

@ Everyone: One more point before I'm done with this post. If you are not in a position to attack, you aren't camping. You are stalling. You are deliberately running down the clock. This is why planking isn't used when the potential planker is behind. Planking doesn't force the approach, the clock does.

 

[Falconv1.0]

One could argue to that last point that if I got a lead as Kirby vs Falco that my crouching isn't forcing an approach, the clock is. But that would be silly.

Your idea of what is/isn't camping is horrible. If you need further proof look at the Demo in TF2 who can CAMP by putting sticky bombs on the walls and waiting for the enemy to approach.

>_>

 

[adumbrodeus]

I agree with your point that planking can be beat. I said so in the post you quoted. Using your line of logic, DDDs infinite against a wall can be beat as well. Simply don't get grabbed. The same goes for using Sonic's homing attack under the stage. You can beat it if you are on the correct level, or if you are using a character that can attack with a projectile under the stage, like Pit. These tactics are banned, and yet there are ways around them. See, this is where the "it's beatable" line of logic fails.

Pah, you don't even get my point, how can you agree with it?

I didn't use the word "beatable" on purpose, because "beatable" refers to the ability to somehow defeat the tactic, no matter how unlikely it is. It's a useless criteria, and it's not how stalling is dealt with. It's dealt with purely in terms of indefinite effective invincibility.

So yes, word choice is important... don't put words into my mouth, it's quite annoying.


Now, here's a little concept called "on occurrence", it means that regardless of the situations that lead up to it, once a criteria is met, the result occurs.

The ban on stalling is on occurrence, so regardless of how difficult it may be to actually set up the infinite stall you a player is disallowed from infinitely stalling.

By the same token, some characters can beat homing stall (as you mentioned, Pit). Since there is no infinite effective invincibility, in that match-up it's not stalling and therefore not banned. Why you would do it is beyond me, but still... (barring levels where this isn't the case of course)

Besides, it's the intent behind the tactic that's the problem here, not the tactic itself.

NO


As far as we are concerned as a competitive community, intent is a meaningless and useless criteria because we have neither the tools to determine it, nor ability to actually create effective rules based around it.


Modern government struggles with determining of intent with the use of polygraphs and modern psychologists, and now you expect a judge to determine intent for 20 or so matches at once? Come on, don't be daft.


So no, the intent is not the "problem", it's an undiscerning and irrelevant concept, best kept to the debate hall.

I read the rules, and they allow for you to go either way because "better positioning" is undefined, and the purpose of planking, successful or not, goes against the rest of the rule. That's why I posted this solution and its why I believe that no matter how this plays out, the rule needs to be revised. Example, if better positioning is defined in the rules and the ledge is one of those places, then planking is legal and no-one can argue about it. I'm honestly fine with that if its the best solution.

*sigh*

You obviously didn't read carefully, because you missed the "prevents all combat so as to make the game unplayable" part.

The very fact that you can be hit out of planking means that it doesn't prevent combat.

Try sticking to a position and doing nothing but ledgedropping and ledge-grabbing for 8 minutes, I guarantee you'll either get hit or ledge-stolen (unless you're melee ganondorf).

@MajinSweet: No need to get accusatory. I understand the concepts perfectly well. I also know that the rules can be interpreted in different ways, which is why this argument can be taking place at all. Also keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate. I argued both pro and anti-ban in the post you quoted. And yes, according to the current rule-set, standing still for extended periods of time is banned because it is stalling. You are avoiding conflict. Its ridiculous, but it CAN be interpreted that way. That is why the rule needs revision.

You're doing it wrong.

Pretending that technical definitions don't exist is not arguing that the rules can be interpreted in different ways. It's just arguing poorly.

@ Everyone: One more point before I'm done with this post. If you are not in a position to attack, you aren't camping. You are stalling. You are deliberately running down the clock. This is why planking isn't used when the potential planker is behind. Planking doesn't force the approach, the clock does.

You're not in a position to attack?!

Wow, so my ledge attacks, and all my ledge-drop shenanigans that I've been doing since 64 never actually happened?!

OMG, I've been living a lie!



With that assertion done away with, it's no different then picking any other arbitrary position on the field as far as stalling is concerned.

And yes, the clock does force people to approach. It normally happens in any situation where one person is at a lower percent and neither player outcamps the other. It's been like this since 64. This has some significance for planking why?

Because I thought it was simply the way the game works, silly me.

 

[MajinSweet]

I agree with your point that planking can be beat. I said so in the post you quoted. Using your line of logic, DDDs infinite against a wall can be beat as well. Simply don't get grabbed. The same goes for using Sonic's homing attack under the stage. You can beat it if you are on the correct level, or if you are using a character that can attack with a projectile under the stage, like Pit. These tactics are banned, and yet there are ways around them. See, this is where the "it's beatable" line of logic fails. Besides, it's the intent behind the tactic that's the problem here, not the tactic itself.

The don't get grabbed argument is fine. Walls are the problem, not just Dedede on a walled staged. Many characters can lock people into a wall, D3 just has an easier time. From what I've heard Sonics stall isn't even good and everyone can beat it quite easily.

The intent of planking is to give you a positional advantage. Should we ban laser camping in Melee? Fox can force people to approach and get practically free damage at the same time. Sounds pretty broken right?

I read the rules, and they allow for you to go either way because "better positioning" is undefined, and the purpose of planking, successful or not, goes against the rest of the rule. That's why I posted this solution and its why I believe that no matter how this plays out, the rule needs to be revised. Example, if better positioning is defined in the rules and the ledge is one of those places, then planking is legal and no-one can argue about it. I'm honestly fine with that if its the best solution.

Thats what I've been trying to tell you. Planking doesn't halt game play, its camping, no other way around it. When people plank they will still often attack you, that alone makes no sense if it was a pure stalling tactic. Its a positional advantage.

@MajinSweet: No need to get accusatory. I understand the concepts perfectly well. I also know that the rules can be interpreted in different ways, which is why this argument can be taking place at all. Also keep in mind I am playing devil's advocate. I argued both pro and anti-ban in the post you quoted. And yes, according to the current rule-set, standing still for extended periods of time is banned because it is stalling. You are avoiding conflict. Its ridiculous, but it CAN be interpreted that way. That is why the rule needs revision.

No it cannot. Standing in place doesn't stop the other guy from coming over and hitting you--thus it isn't stalling.

@ Everyone: One more point before I'm done with this post. If you are not in a position to attack, you aren't camping. You are stalling. You are deliberately running down the clock. This is why planking isn't used when the potential planker is behind. Planking doesn't force the approach, the clock does.

Yes, and WHENEVER YOU DECIDE TO CAMP YOU ARE NOT IN ATTACK RANGE AND ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE CLOCK AND PERCENTAGE. I don't know what the hell logic your using because you have some really bad misconceptions on very simple premises. Running the clock isn't stalling, running the clock isn't against the rules. If it was, why would we even have a clock? You act like camping when you have a % lead is something new to planking? TONS OF FIGHTERS use that mechanic. That goes all the way back to Street Fighter 2. Stalling is when YOU STOP NORMAL GAME PLAY FROM HAPPENING. Planking does not do that because you can still attack a planker. There are ways you can make him move. You can take his ledge, you can fire projectiles from saftey. Please, please learn the difference between camping and stalling. According to you, anytime I'm in a position where my attacks won't hit I'm stalling. I can see it now...I pick Marth. Match starts...STALLING!

 

[_Phloat_]

One could argue to that last point that if I got a lead as Kirby vs Falco that my crouching isn't forcing an approach, the clock is. But that would be silly.

Your idea of what is/isn't camping is horrible. If you need further proof look at the Demo in TF2 who can CAMP by putting sticky bombs on the walls and waiting for the enemy to approach.

>_>

Brawl needs ubercharge

/thread.

 

[bobson]

Planking wouldn't be advantageous if we had items on.


Just sayin'.

 

[Orange_Soda_Man]

I concede that intent is a crappy argument. That said, this game is what we make of it; the game is really campy as it is. We have the power to make the rules as we see fit, and we have done that.

Have there been any tournaments that banned planking or limited ledge grabs? What happened?

Brawl needs ubercharge

We would be raising the competitive viability of brawl if we get planking in check. imo.

 

[thrillagorilla]

@MajinSweet and adumbrodeus: Thank you both for beating out my arguments and setting me straight on a few things. You've convinced me, for whatever its worth. Would you mind sending me a link to the technical definitions that you mentioned? It would be much appreciated.

@ Orange_Soda_Man: How would finding a tourney that has banned planking help? If I am reading the situation correctly, the tactic isn't used very frequently, so any data would be difficult to gather, if not impossible. Also, don't make a statement like "we would be raising competitive viability" without putting forth an argument as to why.

 

[Orange_Soda_Man]

@ OSM: How would finding a tourney that has banned planking help? If I am reading the situation correctly, the tactic isn't used very frequently, so any data would be difficult to gather, if not impossible. Also, don't make a statement like "we would be raising competitive viability" without putting forth an argument as to why.

imo is enough of a reason to state it as an opinion. No argument required. And I was just curious, really.

 

[XienZo]

But your generally fighting so you can't really just easily do it and your shield is likely slightly weakened already.

It barely eats up your shield. Besides, if you get hit, just tech afterwards.

Hanebow is much different though and much more extreme.

The main point is, loops are a reason to ban a stage because they allow players to be "somewhat" invulnerable and run out the clock. Other forms of stalling also do the same thing, although to different extents of "somewhat invulnerable". If Planking is legal because the user is less than "somewhat invulnerable", what is the cut-off of how "invulnerable" a strategy makes a user in order for it to be banned?

Planking wouldn't be advantageous if we had items on.


Just sayin'.

Theoretically an easy fix, but historically controversial. Why can't we consider this for standard?(which means just food on low, not golden hammers on high)

 

[illinialex24]

It barely eats up your shield. Besides, if you get hit, just tech afterwards.

Stages have been been banned for less.

The main point is, loops are a reason to ban a stage because they allow players to be "somewhat" invulnerable and run out the clock. Other forms of stalling also do the same thing, although to different extents of "somewhat invulnerable". If Planking is legal because the user is less than "somewhat invulnerable", what is the cut-off of how "invulnerable" a strategy makes a user in order for it to be banned?

I dunno, its hard to quantify. I think though if there is major invincibility in the recovery and not much immobility or insane range as well (so MK, G&W and Jigglypuff's jump lightstep, not the sing one) should all be banned for planking.