-
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
Vinylic.
Woke?
That is very true.
In fact, The stage is so bad, It makes characters have a sad sudden death.
In fact, The stage is so bad, It makes characters have a sad sudden death.
I don't quite remember, do bomb blocks detonate when they're still falling?
Heavy camping/run away game is a factor. It's somewhat similar to walkoff camping, but weaker in some aspects. Only thing better is that you can camp the side ledges, also.
Every character can destroy a bomb block if spaced correctly. Heck, Jigglypuff can even bair pretty easily and ftilt if you're perfect. Not factoring in invincible aerials from the ledge.
You can't predict when a bomb block is going to drop as far as I know, so the falling portion is always a danger zone. Purposefully hitting into bombs is also very punishing.
Every character can destroy a bomb block if spaced correctly. Heck, Jigglypuff can even bair pretty easily and ftilt if you're perfect. Not factoring in invincible aerials from the ledge.
You can't predict when a bomb block is going to drop as far as I know, so the falling portion is always a danger zone. Purposefully hitting into bombs is also very punishing.
Nidtendofreak
Smash Hero
@ Ankoku: They can, but common sense makes it easy to not to not hit them. There is a thing you have called an "air dodge", it is able to go through the two small areas bombs can fall through. Might wanna try it some time. If one person in particular felt like wasting time, they could also set up the stage to not drop bombs by leaving the top layer of blocks in place, and then destroying the rest.
Blocks aren't a problem. If the opponent was able to hit a block and tech to avoid getting punished for bouncing off, all the power to them.
Close blastzones is no excuse, unless it's a walkoff blastzone.
Apple's aren't an issue. They give you a small heal, or they are throwable. However, they always spawn in the same area, and this is an (admittedly very short) warning by the tree shaking before they fall.
Also: I'm laughing at anyone who thinks it's a good thing/takes balls to ban Brinstar/RC/PS2. Yes sir, it sure takes balls to do what the stupid majority in an area wants to do. >_>
Might I also add that it's mad hypocritical? Alex claimed it's because those stages are "too disruptive"...yet Castle Siege isn't? You know, the stage with three transformations, statues that extend hitboxes to sometimes crazy amounts, walk-offs, can trap you under the stage is somehow less disruptive than a stage going on a set circuit?
Or what about Delfino? We have water, sharking, walls, walk-offs, transformations...yet Brinstar's sharking, objects to extend hitboxes on, and a weak hazard that disrupts sharking is somehow THAT much more disruptive?
Let's call Alex's statement what it is, a lie, and explain what the truth is: a hypocritical way of trying to nerf MK without saying he's OP'd and needs a nerf. Of all of the stages that can be considered "disruptive", he picks out the two ones MK is good at, and another one that people cry about because they don't understand how it works.
That doesn't take balls, that's being a coward. Let me know when that area is actually intelligent enough to ban MK and start fixing the game, instead of watering it down in a vain attempt to keep him around without damaging the game.
Blocks aren't a problem. If the opponent was able to hit a block and tech to avoid getting punished for bouncing off, all the power to them.
Close blastzones is no excuse, unless it's a walkoff blastzone.
Apple's aren't an issue. They give you a small heal, or they are throwable. However, they always spawn in the same area, and this is an (admittedly very short) warning by the tree shaking before they fall.
Also: I'm laughing at anyone who thinks it's a good thing/takes balls to ban Brinstar/RC/PS2. Yes sir, it sure takes balls to do what the stupid majority in an area wants to do. >_>
Might I also add that it's mad hypocritical? Alex claimed it's because those stages are "too disruptive"...yet Castle Siege isn't? You know, the stage with three transformations, statues that extend hitboxes to sometimes crazy amounts, walk-offs, can trap you under the stage is somehow less disruptive than a stage going on a set circuit?
Or what about Delfino? We have water, sharking, walls, walk-offs, transformations...yet Brinstar's sharking, objects to extend hitboxes on, and a weak hazard that disrupts sharking is somehow THAT much more disruptive?
Let's call Alex's statement what it is, a lie, and explain what the truth is: a hypocritical way of trying to nerf MK without saying he's OP'd and needs a nerf. Of all of the stages that can be considered "disruptive", he picks out the two ones MK is good at, and another one that people cry about because they don't understand how it works.
That doesn't take balls, that's being a coward. Let me know when that area is actually intelligent enough to ban MK and start fixing the game, instead of watering it down in a vain attempt to keep him around without damaging the game.
Conviction
Human Nature
I thought it would take balls, to add stages that are under radar that people are talking about. No offense to APEX though.
M@v
Subarashii!
They sure do. I've seen people die from being in the air and a bomb spawns while they are in the spot it spawns.
It "takes balls" to set anything that varies from what is currently the standard set by Unity, due to the implications of not doing so when it comes to a national...
Aren't the only "implications" not getting a (in this case very unneeded) sticky?
Life
Smash Hero
On the subject of Green Greens, there's that one glitch...
#HBC | Red Ryu
Red Fox Warrior
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,486
- Location
- Milwaukee, Wisconsin
- NNID
- RedRyu_Smash
- 3DS FC
- 0344-9312-3352
You mean the invisible wall hitbox?
Vinylic.
Woke?
You made less sense. Nice joke. >_>
Life
Smash Hero
That's what I'm referring to, didn't know what to call it.
Thought it was an actual wall and couldn't be AD'd through? I'm not very familiar with it but I recall reading that somewhere...
Thought it was an actual wall and couldn't be AD'd through? I'm not very familiar with it but I recall reading that somewhere...
^^^ Airdodging through the bomb wall actually doesn't stop it. Blowing up another bomb block near the vicinity while your character gets hit (invincible or not) or while the bomb you explode completely covers the other hitboxes, is how you get rid of it. The other way IIRC is to have a hitbox "phantom" scratch the outer portion of the bomb hitbox. IDR the specifics cause it's been awhile, but I do know that for the bomb wall glitch, airdodging through does not make it go away.
I think there are 2 different, yet similar glitches. The first one is the "soft" glitch that can be overcome by airdodging, but that's because it's about hitbox placement being janky that gets reset to normal if you modify it by passing through it, throwing items into it, etc. The other one is about exploding certain hitboxes to where the bomb hitbox does not go away, and must be reset through eating the hit while invincible and destroying blocks, or hitting another bomb block that covers any active bomb hitboxs still out.
i've never seen a non solid verison
yea, the one ive seen most often (in such a rare glitch that is) is the one that is basically a solid wall with a hitbox, you can't pass through it at all.
Ussi
Smash Legend
AZ's unofficial poll has slowed down.. what happens now?
Have one here.
Ryzol_
Smash Apprentice
Can someone explain why "Intentional Under-performance" results in a yellow card? In any competitive game/sport you always want to win with the least amount of effort. This preserves your endurance or concentration for the difficult matches where you need to give 100%.
How is this enforceable? How can you tell the difference between someone being off for a few matches, versus intentionally saving their energy? How is it fair to make everyone play like Azen?
How is this enforceable? How can you tell the difference between someone being off for a few matches, versus intentionally saving their energy? How is it fair to make everyone play like Azen?
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
It isn't fair, that's why there is so much argument over it.
Why can't these cards just be distributed at the TO's discretion? Vague rules aren't always bad.
Why can't these cards just be distributed at the TO's discretion? Vague rules aren't always bad.
Ussi
Smash Legend
No one gets carded unless they admitted to under performing
Maharba the Mystic
Smash Master
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
...that's hilarious. Can we add that to the ruleset? Because I'd love to be part of a community that has a rule written in Dactylic Trimeter.
So....scrooging rule? No more of that "but we can't enforce it 100% of the matches, derp". You guys need a rule against repeatedly flying under the stage. Its basically the same as walkoff camping. You have to have a projectile that can reach MK consistently, or you have to jump into a horrible position to even attempt to hit him. If scrooging isn't limited, there is no good reason to keep stages like Japes, Green Greens or YI:M off the CP list. Ground characters should get some broken camping spots too. Its only fair.
Woah, how do you scrooge Japes? o_O (effectively) That'd actually be kind of funny
Scrooging on GGs.. Kinda dangerous, huh?
Scrooging on GGs.. Kinda dangerous, huh?
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 10,050
If he's talking about water camping, then we all know about the associated risks one would have to put himself through to scrooge on Jungle Japes.
@Tesh No no no no no no no at smaller LGLs. LGLs are bad period, and setting the number as low as 15-20 would only cause chaos.
...
...
...
...
On second thought, just set the LGL to 15 for Metaknight.
Honestly, I don't care about the negative issues with a lower LGL for MK. I'm so sorry you had to grab the ledge to recover 15-20 times while you weren't stalling and then you STILL let the match time out. If only you had recovery moves with massive hitboxes that could land laglessly over edge.
The LGL needs to be 1/3rd the size for RC as well.
The LGL needs to be 1/3rd the size for RC as well.
Steam
Smash Hero
hey hey guys
hey hey you guys
guys
maybe would could just ban *shot*
hey hey you guys
guys
maybe would could just ban *shot*
I chuckled. 7/10
Judo777
Smash Master
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,627
^^^ Agreed.
There was an argument that I didn't see a conclusion to before it was sidetracked. People were arguing about whether or not you can CP to a stage that you yourself banned. This affects me.
For example, let's say I'm playing a set against an MK. I pick Falco and I beat him on Battlefield. I then ban Brinstar because **** Falco on that stage. The MK player then CPs me to FD. While I'm praising my good fortune at him being ********, he scrolls over and picks ICs. He then wrecks me and bans RCruise because he intends to stay ICs and knows that I second MK. I then want to pick Rainbow Cruise because I feel that switching to my pocket MK is the best choice.
I've had similar situations pop up before where I felt I was better off playing MK on my CP and on a stage that I had banned. I've never been called out for it and have always been under the impression that it was perfectly legal because you have the opportunity to ban that stage as well if you think that you don't want to play me on it. I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to CP to it because the point of the ban system is to provide a check to your opponent's counter pick in order to prevent having to play a match-up on a stage that would completely destroy you. The point of the ban system is not to limit your own options because you play two characters with polarizing styles.
Since the opponent has the opportunity to forbid you picking whatever stage he wants, what is to stop you from banning Brinstar and then CPing to it? What is the argument for making the game better by making you unable to play on a stage you have banned?
For example, let's say I'm playing a set against an MK. I pick Falco and I beat him on Battlefield. I then ban Brinstar because **** Falco on that stage. The MK player then CPs me to FD. While I'm praising my good fortune at him being ********, he scrolls over and picks ICs. He then wrecks me and bans RCruise because he intends to stay ICs and knows that I second MK. I then want to pick Rainbow Cruise because I feel that switching to my pocket MK is the best choice.
I've had similar situations pop up before where I felt I was better off playing MK on my CP and on a stage that I had banned. I've never been called out for it and have always been under the impression that it was perfectly legal because you have the opportunity to ban that stage as well if you think that you don't want to play me on it. I see absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to CP to it because the point of the ban system is to provide a check to your opponent's counter pick in order to prevent having to play a match-up on a stage that would completely destroy you. The point of the ban system is not to limit your own options because you play two characters with polarizing styles.
Since the opponent has the opportunity to forbid you picking whatever stage he wants, what is to stop you from banning Brinstar and then CPing to it? What is the argument for making the game better by making you unable to play on a stage you have banned?
I mean, how many people go
"I ban RC"
"I ban RC as well"
?
At least in recent times, it's been generally assumed that banning a stage is taking it completely off the list for your set, not "you can't use this stage, but now I can"
"I ban RC"
"I ban RC as well"
?
At least in recent times, it's been generally assumed that banning a stage is taking it completely off the list for your set, not "you can't use this stage, but now I can"
Well it's not entirely uncommon to me that ppl ban brinstar cuz they don't wanna get gimmicked and then are like **** this **** when they get ***** game 2 and cp brinstar.
A better example would be me (playing dedede) vs semifer (wolf main). I always ban FD vs him, cuz i know his 2ndary falco gives me a hard time (d3 vs falco on FD
). On the other hand I could see him banning FD as well, as the d3 vs wolf mu there greatly favors me; and if I were to cp FD and he'd go falco, I'd probably beat 'm with my own secondaries (Wolf/MK).
Both banning the same stage probably wouldn't happen if the CP procedure wasn't as flawed as it is now (not that i know a better procedure at this moment )
A better example would be me (playing dedede) vs semifer (wolf main). I always ban FD vs him, cuz i know his 2ndary falco gives me a hard time (d3 vs falco on FD
). On the other hand I could see him banning FD as well, as the d3 vs wolf mu there greatly favors me; and if I were to cp FD and he'd go falco, I'd probably beat 'm with my own secondaries (Wolf/MK). Both banning the same stage probably wouldn't happen if the CP procedure wasn't as flawed as it is now (not that i know a better procedure at this moment
)
Why does how many people make it matter? If both players know don't want to go to RCruise, they can both ban it, but that's not the problem I'm seeing.
Why should I not be allowed to play on a stage banned because I didn't want to be CPed there? It can make a HUGE difference depending on whether or not I have the second character selection.
The last line is complete bull**** because generally accepted is a vague term that apparently doesn't apply to anywhere I've traveled in the Southeast or the one tournament I attended while in CO. Not only that, but saying that it is does absolutely nothing to explain WHY it is.