TheSlothStyle
Smash Apprentice
Your trolling is very impressive. Have you tried 4 Chan or You Tube?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Unity Ruleset: Discussion
- Thread starter Unity Ruleset Committee
- Start date
TheSlothStyle
Smash Apprentice
:D ROFL! I agree!
I always request to turn pause off myself due to me using Luigi (the down b recovery causes accidental start button hits.) I could imagine the same thing happening accidentally if I DACUS with Sheik (probably what happened there.)
I believe pause should just be off, why risk the stock loss?
I believe pause should just be off, why risk the stock loss?
TheSlothStyle
Smash Apprentice
Me personally, I never have that problem with pausing, but I leave it on for one reason: Just in case the guy I'm going up against pauses.
popsofctown
Smash Champion
That's extremely badass playing to win. You are already inducted into my anti-scrub club. Right now it's just me, but Planck (sp?) is definitely an honorary member.
It wasn't actually "inescapable", its just that by the time Judo paused, logic had already fallen for it. He used Uair to break out of the hitstun and if he had used Dair, he probably would have hit Judo away.
Also, there are plenty of ways to win that take less "skill". As M2K pointed out in the SiiS6 results thread, its not the fault of attendees, its the fault of the ruleset and the TO for running that ruleset. Just like having no LGL for MK, or having temple hyrule legal or using MK at all. Its not the player's fault that a ruleset lets people take an easy or free win.
Read and understand the rules if you are going to attend a tournament. Its like WHOBO 3 all over again.
Also, there are plenty of ways to win that take less "skill". As M2K pointed out in the SiiS6 results thread, its not the fault of attendees, its the fault of the ruleset and the TO for running that ruleset. Just like having no LGL for MK, or having temple hyrule legal or using MK at all. Its not the player's fault that a ruleset lets people take an easy or free win.
Read and understand the rules if you are going to attend a tournament. Its like WHOBO 3 all over again.
Mew2King
King of the Mews
yeah this pause thing is tricky. If you pause when ICs grab you, you should have to lose a stock I agree.
edit - LOL @ using MK. Wow this brawl community is such babies I swear
edit - LOL @ using MK. Wow this brawl community is such babies I swear
A Peach just got 2nd place at a 77 man tournament. Beat Logic's Metaknight.
Dunno' how you can spew this nonsense about a specific tournament given that specific tournament's results.
Its just an example, and I'm saying its not your fault. If a TO had Temple Hyrule legal, I would definitely whip out Sonic and get my free win (or force someone to play Sonic dittos with me).
Just because something within the rules is cheap, immoral and/or something the crowd hates (like you planking at the SiiS that didn't have an LGL) doesn't mean a player should be punished. Its the TOs fault for using a bad rule.
Just because something within the rules is cheap, immoral and/or something the crowd hates (like you planking at the SiiS that didn't have an LGL) doesn't mean a player should be punished. Its the TOs fault for using a bad rule.
Juushichi
sugoi ~ sugoi ~
She beat logic's Olimar first set then beat it again before he switched to MK.
It also speaks that he had to go mK to even stand a chance. I thought our CEO's were the only ones that needed a free bailout. It's just that this time it didn't work.
Also mdva has no good MK's.
It also speaks that he had to go mK to even stand a chance. I thought our CEO's were the only ones that needed a free bailout. It's just that this time it didn't work.
Also mdva has no good MK's.
Logic's MK isn't very good. Though it was hilarious when he gimped King Beef at 10% with shuttle loop. For that matter, I could see myself losing on temple hyrule against players alot better than myself (I've never had a lead against top texas players), but that doesn't mean temple hyrule is a legit and fair CP.
I'm not going to go into that argument. Heard it before.
"MK is broke."
*Dude loses with MK.*
"Well, his MK isn't that good."
"MK is broke."
*Dude loses with MK.*
"Well, his MK isn't that good."
Me. NEO. Junebug.
Player-1
Smash Legend
I got guess MKmaster0923 who placed 65th out of a 49 tournament who just bought brawl a couple days ago should be taken into consideration with MKs legality, right?
Player-1
Smash Legend
Maybe you should be more specific next time.
Player-1
Smash Legend
not in your example, you referred to the MK player as "dude".
Stop making excuses for your vague comments.
Stop making excuses for your vague comments.
Stop arguing semantics.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Hey Omni, that last infraction? Totally worth it. Just sayin'.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
Vinnie beat my MK once, MK is probably fine.
Player-1
Smash Legend
Logic's MK isn't very good.
That's my point.
If he had won against Nicole after losing with Olimar, people would be crying out 'ban mk' and 'omg he so broke'. But since he didn't win with MK then the next deduction is 'his mk isn't that good'.
Player-1
Smash Legend
Making assumptions about things that didn't happen, good point.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
It really doesn't matter who beat who. Siis6 results were varied because no top MK players showed up and a bunch of top other things did. If you're pro-ban you probably think this is a good thing and if you're anti (all 24% of you), you probably are indifferent to what the results look like as long as the game stays intact.
Juushichi
sugoi ~ sugoi ~
SFP has it right.
popsofctown
Smash Champion
I thought I'd wallpost some of my MK ban thoughts since things were quiet. Now they aren't so quiet. Oh well.
[COLLAPSE="COLLAPSE"]So after sitting around this thread and posting one liners awhile, I think I'll throw my spiel. Earlier I didn't want to waste people's time, because historically I'm terribly unpersuasive on forums, almost to the point that I start the engine and head in reverse. But people are now throwing tomatoes at trolls so I feel like things are quiet enough I can't be doing much damage.
I've been pro-ban since Overswarm's hype for it way back when. I would have definitely seen "let's see one more tournament" as valid back then, but pretty early on I was satisfied that MetaKnight was probably not going to have any bad matchups at all, and at worst would have a 45-55 somewhere which would still make him extremely centralizing and a must-secondary.
I was rather confused when Meta Knight failed to consistently take 6/8 each top 8 after things stabilized. I figured people hadn't quite gotten it yet, and it would only take a bit longer.
Then somewhere down the line, I realized the game was never going to degenerate to a true MK ditto fest, ever. After seeing Meta Knight lose to Diddy, Pikachu, Snake, Falco, Olimar, Sonic, Lucario, etc I realized, no one cares about picking a character for the sake of winning. Well of course they care some, Ganon's usage rate isn't equal to Wario's. But they don't care enough. The diverse number of characters toppling Meta Knight a respective minority of the time showed that no one wanted to play the ditto, and no one even wanted to play characters that countered Meta Knight the most.
The balance between playing a preferred character and playing the winningest one is different for everyone. I think to some extent, everyone has a point where they will stop playing to win because their strategy is getting so unenjoyable (the difference between the scrub and a good player is moving that point as far as you can towards winning for long term satisfaction, and respecting other players who are willing to go to the depths you find too intense instead of booing my charizard for chaingrabbing Ness in a low tier tournament.)
That balance, for this community, is such that the game will continue to have diversity. As long as really talented players decide they really don't enjoy two frame upairs, the game will have character diversity.
At the same time, there are players who will main and pocket MK to improve their chances of winning. Some explicitly do this, a lot of MK players who enjoy his playstyle may have stuck with the character for reasons directly linked to his strength.
I pondered for a while, how such a motley mixture of players could ever live in peace and harmony. I analyzed it with game theory, and whether my models were exactly correct, the game theory helped me see the logical conclusion: a player who does not play Meta Knight cannot logically and fairly impose a ban on that character on the basis of character diversity, because he's supplying it. Removing Meta Knight gives him a better chance at winning and doing so under conditions he enjoys (playing his favorite character) but by definition the Meta Knight player cares more about winning than you do in the first place, so from a utilitarian perspective you don't improve things by handicapping the Meta Knight player. This is of course assuming you think Meta Knight is overpowered, and still refuse to play him, you can't really be proban anyway unless he's overpowered.
Two players who are both playing to win and playing a Meta Knight ditto because they are playing to win do benefit from the ban; their odds of winning doesn't change but character diversity increases and they get greater latitude to play a favorite character. A community of Overswarms really is happier with the ban. A community of "my name is robert and I want to win with Rob :D" isn't happier. It's just siphoning happiness away from the Meta Knight players. That's why all the MK mains are angry. This line of logic is unjustified in an intrinsic way (is that a correct use of the word intrinsic?)
Since I want the ban to go through, perhaps it's unwise of me to shoot down the diversity argument hard like that. But maybe the odds are better if the bad logic is kicked out and only good logic is left.
The reason I remain pro-ban is because surgical, subjective nerfs are naturally inaccurate and a slap in the face to many members of the community. First I'll explain how their subjective, then why they suck.
IDC ban was fine, don't strawman IDC into this. It has minor enforcement issues but for the most part it's clear that it breaks the game if it exists and there is a clear cutoff line to remove that component.
LGL is absolutely subjective. Meta Knight started winning too much due to some strategy. The assessment of the metagame really should have stopped there, we should be blind to what that strategy is if we can't describe it in a sentence in a way that makes it clear what constitutes that strategy and what constitutes recovery. But we kept on going and deciding that some subset of the ways Meta Knight uses the ledge is too powerful.
What can you do to make sure this poorly defined group of behaviors never happens? There is no one discrete, clear, obvious solution. And that's where it becomes subjective (or perhaps the second time really). LGL is one solution. How many ledge grabs? That's subjective. LGL proponents try to argue that the LGL is just right because it's in some sort of broad window where planking becomes useless and recovering is just dandy. The burden of evidence is on them to prove that, actually, but we already have people timing out in LGL games. So M2K says, add time to the clock. That's a subjective solution, again. How much time? Why add time, why not add a % handicap to Meta knight so that the current time limit prevents the strategy naturally? Why not add food on low? Why not cause all Meta Knight games to be played on Shadow Moses Island? These can all be used as substitutes for the LGL itself, of course. There's numerous other endgame stats that probably work to restrict planking as well, and it's subjective how much you pare it down. Platform fallthroughs was in melee, so I know that would work. I don't have a wii right now but smashes performed, taunts performed, items picked up with stickers on low (beat the other guy by 20 stickers in a game that times out, you win), and any number of other things work. As does a different number of ledgegrabs. Ledgegrabs aren't naturally related to the strategy anymore than upairs are, and there's no natural number to set like we have with IDC, where that number was definitely 0.
The second subjective thing that happens is number of stage bans available, and the stage availability list. MK friendly stages tend to get banned, RIP norfair. Regardless of whether the stage has too many problems of its own or not, MK definitely accelerated its ban. Now we're talking about banning Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar to nerf MK. Is Rainbow cruise enough bannage if we leave Brinstar in? Are we not going far enough by leaving Delfino Plaza legal? Again, the character is being nerfed in a subjective way.
The first thing I asserted is that surgical nerfs are naturally innaccurate. The proof is in the pudding on that one, but it's also true from a logical standpoint. The characters, playstyles, stages, everything, forms a big rock paper scissors game with everything else. Of course, there are more than three choices, we also have jackhammers paper mache and boxcutters. If you find something that breaks the game - the laser pistol is frying everything - removing it entirely makes it likely that all the other strategies form an equilibrium of counters with eachother (if they don't, a subjective nerf was probably incapable of creating equilibrium anyhow, due to an underlying issue). Undernerfing laser pistol leaves the possibility that laser pistol still beats everything else in the game. Overnerfing it becomes tantamount to removal - if it loses to everything in game, it might as well not exist. So the point of nerfing in the first place has to be aiming for the balance.. which is nebulous. There is a chance you nerf laser pistol just enough for it to stop burning through Mirror pan and leave it good enough to beat paper, admittedly. But you can't be sure you won't mess up and undernerf. And overnerfing is the same as banning - you remove that one strategy, but you make it very likely that you can regain equilibrium.
Analogies are bad for persuasion. I've said that in this thread. This is why I say of myself I'm bad at persuasion, I knowingly do the wrong. To apply it to the situation, nerfing Meta Knight is inherently less accurate than banning him. Undernerfing is a miss, and doesn't fix the problem. Overnerfing is the same as removing him, he becomes Ganon tier and is basically no longer a character (he probably is that fail with no specials). The sweetspot exists but it's too small to hit in one shot.
Bringing me to the second reason subjective nerfs are bad - every single time you nerf Meta Knight, you slap all the Meta Knight players in the face. You slap them twice, it's a doubleslap, jiggz style. First you slap them by making them relearn the game. If you ban Rainbow Cruise, I have to learn other stages. If you raise the time limit, I have to learn to play with less stalling, which was legit until you changed the rules. It might not end with those actions, who knows. It's kinda like banning MK makes people learn a new character, but it's smaller, it's repeated, and it has less promise of ending its cycle. The guys who can still win by huge margins and reap cash of course want to pay that small price. Someone playing MK because that's the best way to get by like me gets pissed at seeing other players rewarded for character selections inferior to mine because they are inferior to mine incrementally and repeatedly. I'd rather have it one and done. It may sound selfish, but it's really not, a preference for playing MK, either for pleasure of high winning likelihood, is a natural prerequisite for wanting to put up that. I don't prefer him or have a talent that lets me win more with him, I just play him because that's optimal in the current ruleset.
That pales in comparison to the thing I hate most about subjective nerfs - it's all tied to the players. If my region didn't ban MK, (it did, I think mostly for the reasons I feel I've refuted above, but I'll take it however I can get it I guess), I would go to tournaments knowing that if I've invented a new tech like shuttle loop cancelling, I'll lose a stage or timer time. If I find a way to camp Falco out indefinitely, I get one tournament win and then that gets banned so the Falco can beat me with his character. If I just play well in general and make good predictions, I might lose a stage anyhow. This doesn't apply to me specifically of course, but to the body of Meta Knight players as a whole. It's all the injustice of banning the character someone's spent time on - injustice indeed if we're not playing mirror matches, as I stated earlier - over, and over, and over again. It's not fun because we lose ground every time we gain ground. The motivation to improve decreases, the rules committee is going to make sure your tournament placement remains constant anyhow. And the newest shiniest thing you can come up with to add to your game (that you might legitimately enjoy, like abusing Brinstar), that's the most likely to get removed. All the other characters in the game lose motivation to improve too. They give up during phases of the nerf cycle where it's clear he's unstoppable (like now. No one's trying to master brinstar against MK right now, they're posting on the forums instead.) It takes away from the legacy of the game too, tournament finals are often remembered as flawed segments of the slow nerf cycle instead of the rise of a new character contender that becomes a feature of the metagame. It's all kinds of bad.
EDIT: What it comes down to is that I'm so anti-ban, I'm pro-ban. I believe we should play the game without an LGL, because when the non-MK players impose an LGL on me, that's unfair just like when a non-MK player banned the MK character in my earlier example. We could go through the exercise of playing Brawl with no LGL, but we all know how that story ends. Everyone and there mother plays MK, the game dies if the rules don't change. MK reaches a breaking point where everyone's love of pet favorites and diversity isn't strong enough to maintain diversity. And at that breaking point, I still hate bans, so I want you to ban as few times as possible for the lifetime of the game to fix this. I'm that anti-ban. So you ban Meta Knight.
tl;dr? : I forgive you[/COLLAPSE]
[COLLAPSE="COLLAPSE"]So after sitting around this thread and posting one liners awhile, I think I'll throw my spiel. Earlier I didn't want to waste people's time, because historically I'm terribly unpersuasive on forums, almost to the point that I start the engine and head in reverse. But people are now throwing tomatoes at trolls so I feel like things are quiet enough I can't be doing much damage.
I've been pro-ban since Overswarm's hype for it way back when. I would have definitely seen "let's see one more tournament" as valid back then, but pretty early on I was satisfied that MetaKnight was probably not going to have any bad matchups at all, and at worst would have a 45-55 somewhere which would still make him extremely centralizing and a must-secondary.
I was rather confused when Meta Knight failed to consistently take 6/8 each top 8 after things stabilized. I figured people hadn't quite gotten it yet, and it would only take a bit longer.
Then somewhere down the line, I realized the game was never going to degenerate to a true MK ditto fest, ever. After seeing Meta Knight lose to Diddy, Pikachu, Snake, Falco, Olimar, Sonic, Lucario, etc I realized, no one cares about picking a character for the sake of winning. Well of course they care some, Ganon's usage rate isn't equal to Wario's. But they don't care enough. The diverse number of characters toppling Meta Knight a respective minority of the time showed that no one wanted to play the ditto, and no one even wanted to play characters that countered Meta Knight the most.
The balance between playing a preferred character and playing the winningest one is different for everyone. I think to some extent, everyone has a point where they will stop playing to win because their strategy is getting so unenjoyable (the difference between the scrub and a good player is moving that point as far as you can towards winning for long term satisfaction, and respecting other players who are willing to go to the depths you find too intense instead of booing my charizard for chaingrabbing Ness in a low tier tournament.)
That balance, for this community, is such that the game will continue to have diversity. As long as really talented players decide they really don't enjoy two frame upairs, the game will have character diversity.
At the same time, there are players who will main and pocket MK to improve their chances of winning. Some explicitly do this, a lot of MK players who enjoy his playstyle may have stuck with the character for reasons directly linked to his strength.
I pondered for a while, how such a motley mixture of players could ever live in peace and harmony. I analyzed it with game theory, and whether my models were exactly correct, the game theory helped me see the logical conclusion: a player who does not play Meta Knight cannot logically and fairly impose a ban on that character on the basis of character diversity, because he's supplying it. Removing Meta Knight gives him a better chance at winning and doing so under conditions he enjoys (playing his favorite character) but by definition the Meta Knight player cares more about winning than you do in the first place, so from a utilitarian perspective you don't improve things by handicapping the Meta Knight player. This is of course assuming you think Meta Knight is overpowered, and still refuse to play him, you can't really be proban anyway unless he's overpowered.
Two players who are both playing to win and playing a Meta Knight ditto because they are playing to win do benefit from the ban; their odds of winning doesn't change but character diversity increases and they get greater latitude to play a favorite character. A community of Overswarms really is happier with the ban. A community of "my name is robert and I want to win with Rob :D" isn't happier. It's just siphoning happiness away from the Meta Knight players. That's why all the MK mains are angry. This line of logic is unjustified in an intrinsic way (is that a correct use of the word intrinsic?)
Since I want the ban to go through, perhaps it's unwise of me to shoot down the diversity argument hard like that. But maybe the odds are better if the bad logic is kicked out and only good logic is left.
The reason I remain pro-ban is because surgical, subjective nerfs are naturally inaccurate and a slap in the face to many members of the community. First I'll explain how their subjective, then why they suck.
IDC ban was fine, don't strawman IDC into this. It has minor enforcement issues but for the most part it's clear that it breaks the game if it exists and there is a clear cutoff line to remove that component.
LGL is absolutely subjective. Meta Knight started winning too much due to some strategy. The assessment of the metagame really should have stopped there, we should be blind to what that strategy is if we can't describe it in a sentence in a way that makes it clear what constitutes that strategy and what constitutes recovery. But we kept on going and deciding that some subset of the ways Meta Knight uses the ledge is too powerful.
What can you do to make sure this poorly defined group of behaviors never happens? There is no one discrete, clear, obvious solution. And that's where it becomes subjective (or perhaps the second time really). LGL is one solution. How many ledge grabs? That's subjective. LGL proponents try to argue that the LGL is just right because it's in some sort of broad window where planking becomes useless and recovering is just dandy. The burden of evidence is on them to prove that, actually, but we already have people timing out in LGL games. So M2K says, add time to the clock. That's a subjective solution, again. How much time? Why add time, why not add a % handicap to Meta knight so that the current time limit prevents the strategy naturally? Why not add food on low? Why not cause all Meta Knight games to be played on Shadow Moses Island? These can all be used as substitutes for the LGL itself, of course. There's numerous other endgame stats that probably work to restrict planking as well, and it's subjective how much you pare it down. Platform fallthroughs was in melee, so I know that would work. I don't have a wii right now but smashes performed, taunts performed, items picked up with stickers on low (beat the other guy by 20 stickers in a game that times out, you win), and any number of other things work. As does a different number of ledgegrabs. Ledgegrabs aren't naturally related to the strategy anymore than upairs are, and there's no natural number to set like we have with IDC, where that number was definitely 0.
The second subjective thing that happens is number of stage bans available, and the stage availability list. MK friendly stages tend to get banned, RIP norfair. Regardless of whether the stage has too many problems of its own or not, MK definitely accelerated its ban. Now we're talking about banning Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar to nerf MK. Is Rainbow cruise enough bannage if we leave Brinstar in? Are we not going far enough by leaving Delfino Plaza legal? Again, the character is being nerfed in a subjective way.
The first thing I asserted is that surgical nerfs are naturally innaccurate. The proof is in the pudding on that one, but it's also true from a logical standpoint. The characters, playstyles, stages, everything, forms a big rock paper scissors game with everything else. Of course, there are more than three choices, we also have jackhammers paper mache and boxcutters. If you find something that breaks the game - the laser pistol is frying everything - removing it entirely makes it likely that all the other strategies form an equilibrium of counters with eachother (if they don't, a subjective nerf was probably incapable of creating equilibrium anyhow, due to an underlying issue). Undernerfing laser pistol leaves the possibility that laser pistol still beats everything else in the game. Overnerfing it becomes tantamount to removal - if it loses to everything in game, it might as well not exist. So the point of nerfing in the first place has to be aiming for the balance.. which is nebulous. There is a chance you nerf laser pistol just enough for it to stop burning through Mirror pan and leave it good enough to beat paper, admittedly. But you can't be sure you won't mess up and undernerf. And overnerfing is the same as banning - you remove that one strategy, but you make it very likely that you can regain equilibrium.
Analogies are bad for persuasion. I've said that in this thread. This is why I say of myself I'm bad at persuasion, I knowingly do the wrong. To apply it to the situation, nerfing Meta Knight is inherently less accurate than banning him. Undernerfing is a miss, and doesn't fix the problem. Overnerfing is the same as removing him, he becomes Ganon tier and is basically no longer a character (he probably is that fail with no specials). The sweetspot exists but it's too small to hit in one shot.
Bringing me to the second reason subjective nerfs are bad - every single time you nerf Meta Knight, you slap all the Meta Knight players in the face. You slap them twice, it's a doubleslap, jiggz style. First you slap them by making them relearn the game. If you ban Rainbow Cruise, I have to learn other stages. If you raise the time limit, I have to learn to play with less stalling, which was legit until you changed the rules. It might not end with those actions, who knows. It's kinda like banning MK makes people learn a new character, but it's smaller, it's repeated, and it has less promise of ending its cycle. The guys who can still win by huge margins and reap cash of course want to pay that small price. Someone playing MK because that's the best way to get by like me gets pissed at seeing other players rewarded for character selections inferior to mine because they are inferior to mine incrementally and repeatedly. I'd rather have it one and done. It may sound selfish, but it's really not, a preference for playing MK, either for pleasure of high winning likelihood, is a natural prerequisite for wanting to put up that. I don't prefer him or have a talent that lets me win more with him, I just play him because that's optimal in the current ruleset.
That pales in comparison to the thing I hate most about subjective nerfs - it's all tied to the players. If my region didn't ban MK, (it did, I think mostly for the reasons I feel I've refuted above, but I'll take it however I can get it I guess), I would go to tournaments knowing that if I've invented a new tech like shuttle loop cancelling, I'll lose a stage or timer time. If I find a way to camp Falco out indefinitely, I get one tournament win and then that gets banned so the Falco can beat me with his character. If I just play well in general and make good predictions, I might lose a stage anyhow. This doesn't apply to me specifically of course, but to the body of Meta Knight players as a whole. It's all the injustice of banning the character someone's spent time on - injustice indeed if we're not playing mirror matches, as I stated earlier - over, and over, and over again. It's not fun because we lose ground every time we gain ground. The motivation to improve decreases, the rules committee is going to make sure your tournament placement remains constant anyhow. And the newest shiniest thing you can come up with to add to your game (that you might legitimately enjoy, like abusing Brinstar), that's the most likely to get removed. All the other characters in the game lose motivation to improve too. They give up during phases of the nerf cycle where it's clear he's unstoppable (like now. No one's trying to master brinstar against MK right now, they're posting on the forums instead.) It takes away from the legacy of the game too, tournament finals are often remembered as flawed segments of the slow nerf cycle instead of the rise of a new character contender that becomes a feature of the metagame. It's all kinds of bad.
EDIT: What it comes down to is that I'm so anti-ban, I'm pro-ban. I believe we should play the game without an LGL, because when the non-MK players impose an LGL on me, that's unfair just like when a non-MK player banned the MK character in my earlier example. We could go through the exercise of playing Brawl with no LGL, but we all know how that story ends. Everyone and there mother plays MK, the game dies if the rules don't change. MK reaches a breaking point where everyone's love of pet favorites and diversity isn't strong enough to maintain diversity. And at that breaking point, I still hate bans, so I want you to ban as few times as possible for the lifetime of the game to fix this. I'm that anti-ban. So you ban Meta Knight.
tl;dr? : I forgive you[/COLLAPSE]
TSM ZeRo
Banned via Administration
Rules are rules. We have rules for a reason: To follow them. They replayed the game and Logic won. Logic didn't get a free win for the pause problem in his match against Judo (and that's what should have happened instead of replaying the match). I don't understand the Logic hate at all. Logic had the right to take a free win for Judo's mistake. We all know that Judo not taking the win is "BS" or "Unfair", but again, rules are rules.
If we made an exception there, what's next? We can break rules if needed?
------------
I think that the new pause rule should be:
1.- Pause HAS to be OFF.
2.- If a player pauses in a moment that the outcome of the game could change, he either, SD's his/her current stock, or forfeits the game, depending of how badly he affected the outcome of the game -TO Discretion- (Pausing when someone is recovering, pausing while someone is CG'ing, etc). If someone pauses and that pause doesn't affect the outcome of a game, then there is no penalty (Pausing when someone is being a Star KO, or you hit him/her with a fully charged smash on 200%). However, hitting someone right before, or right after an attack is a good motive for a penalty. If you pause before, you could mess up your opponent's shield/dodge reaction, thus, giving you a free hit. If you pause right after, you could mess up his DI, thus, killing him/giving you an "easy kill".
¿What about this?
If we made an exception there, what's next? We can break rules if needed?
------------
I think that the new pause rule should be:
1.- Pause HAS to be OFF.
2.- If a player pauses in a moment that the outcome of the game could change, he either, SD's his/her current stock, or forfeits the game, depending of how badly he affected the outcome of the game -TO Discretion- (Pausing when someone is recovering, pausing while someone is CG'ing, etc). If someone pauses and that pause doesn't affect the outcome of a game, then there is no penalty (Pausing when someone is being a Star KO, or you hit him/her with a fully charged smash on 200%). However, hitting someone right before, or right after an attack is a good motive for a penalty. If you pause before, you could mess up your opponent's shield/dodge reaction, thus, giving you a free hit. If you pause right after, you could mess up his DI, thus, killing him/giving you an "easy kill".
¿What about this?
You can buffer inputs during a pause, so I don't see how pausing after the fact can mess up your DI.
Mekos
Smash Master
THAT'S BEEN MY POINT THIS WHOLE TIME PLAYER-1.
You say logic's mk isn't very good. Most of the pocket mks aren't very good. Most of yall are crying over losing to pocket mks not losing to Anti, M2k, Nairo, etc. If you lose to these pocket mks u need to do some training. Keeping it real...they aren't that great as u say yourself about logics. It's not a valid point also to say he shouldn't have to have a pocket mk. Many people have pocket other characters too. That makes no sense.
Again one last time. Yall are crying cause your losing to pocket mks. Get over that and learn how to read them and punish their habits with your individual skill. They mostly all do the same generic stuff. For example, if they are at a certain distance from you they are going to tornado. If they feel threatened after not hitting an attack they will up B. Learn to read and stop trying to ban a character and split the community.
M2k has a valid point. This poll doesn't even mean much on the simple fact that most people don't attend tourneys.
You say logic's mk isn't very good. Most of the pocket mks aren't very good. Most of yall are crying over losing to pocket mks not losing to Anti, M2k, Nairo, etc. If you lose to these pocket mks u need to do some training. Keeping it real...they aren't that great as u say yourself about logics. It's not a valid point also to say he shouldn't have to have a pocket mk. Many people have pocket other characters too. That makes no sense.
Again one last time. Yall are crying cause your losing to pocket mks. Get over that and learn how to read them and punish their habits with your individual skill. They mostly all do the same generic stuff. For example, if they are at a certain distance from you they are going to tornado. If they feel threatened after not hitting an attack they will up B. Learn to read and stop trying to ban a character and split the community.
M2k has a valid point. This poll doesn't even mean much on the simple fact that most people don't attend tourneys.
MysteryRevengerson
IT'S A MYSTERY TO ALL
Just like you cry about standing infinites/grab releases? 
I'd also like to point out that not everyone can camp and MK has great approach options.
I'd also like to point out that not everyone can camp and MK has great approach options.
Player-1
Smash Legend
Mekos
Smash Master
But they are. What is the problem then. Are u fustrated that u are losing to Anti, M2k, Nairo, etc?
It's funny u brought that up cause I already said I will overcome it. And not cry like u babies. I have already developed a plan for TO's that allow that. I've stated that plenty of times.
It's funny u brought that up cause I already said I will overcome it. And not cry like u babies. I have already developed a plan for TO's that allow that. I've stated that plenty of times.
TSM ZeRo
Banned via Administration
I don't think anyone could buffer DI every single time after a Pause (DI>Momentum Cancel). DI is more of a reaction "skill". So, pausing could affect your DI and reaction time. And that could mean the end of that stock. Tell me, if someone paused right after you got an U-Smash from Fox on 95%, what would you do? If you don't DI, you will die without a question. However, if you DI properly, you wouldn't die. And pause could definitely mess up your DI reaction/timing.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
He couldn't lived anyway. He got hit with the tipper which can't be SDId (right?) and DI wouldn't have saved him, he would have died no matter what.