Excessive Stalling

“Excessive stalling or abusing terrain to not engage the enemy is prohibited, and can be enforced by a tournament director only. This will result in a loss of the match.”

Could we get a definition on this. Metaknight’s infinate cape stall (which basically leaves you permanently invulnerable any where you want) isn’t stage specific. If there are 20 seconds left in a match, and I infinite cape will I get DQ’d? What about 10 seconds? What about just to wait out the duration of a remote mine or proxy? What about 5 seconds, while I’m up on percentage, to make sure I get the win.

This rule is to vague. Players can do this stall for however long they want, or can’t do it at all. There needs to be some clear definition, for this and other problems (wall infinites, standing CG infinites, etc).


Mr. Wizard just posted a ruling on this, but I don’t know how people will differentiate stalling from other uses of this technique.

Pretty sure he’s just making a blanket ‘ban’ on stalling with it just in case some stuff is discovered that makes it obviously unstoppable. It seems like a safety net just in case rather than a “dont ever even think of using it” rule.

I wouldn’t worry about the rule being enforced to much just don’t try to stall the match using shit like this and nobody will care.

I would like some clarification in the wording on the ban of MK’s stall. This ruling doesn’t actually say anything that’s objectively enforceable at all. Who’s to say when someone is using this as a stalling tactic and when they’re using it as an approach, second guessing themselves, and coming out of it far away from their opponent for safety reasons?

Better to run the risk of some stupid broken crap winning the tournament than to allow someone to be DQed on the basis of a squishy rule.

what are you trying to accomplish ? besides whining ?

I agree that something needs to come more solid on stalling. Everyone can pretty much agree on using a stage for total non-engagement (doing a ring-around-the-Summit), but would simply avoiding engagement on FD by running and air dodging qualify? What about simply trying to maintain distance and occasionally firing off a projectile when you’ve got enough room to do so? If someone’s camping a spot that makes it nearly-impossible for the other player to approach (Pit against Wario on one of the side platforms on Jungle Japes, for example), is Wario at fault for refusing to engage that disastrously-bad scenario, or is Pit at fault for creating such a situation as the only way for the other guy to win is not to play?

(I don’t care about the Infinate Cape glitch- that’s an OoB glitch and was banned on the principal of being such, like virtually every other OoB glitch in existence. Even if it has other applications then simply vanishing for X amount of the match, the fact is that it can be used to remove Metaknight from play for long periods of time with only a minimum amount of vulnerable time in between- that can be anywhere on solid ground of the level- to punish before he vanishes for who-knows-how-long again makes it a big NO. Someone doesn’t need to mash it for five minutes to break it- they need to be able to do it for 20 seconds and be smart enough to make themselves appear far enough away to get away with starting it up again, which considering how fast it is and the only person who’ll have a clue when Metaknight will be punishable is Metaknight, isn’t very hard at all.)

I believe he’s trying to understand why exactly EVO chooses to ban what it does. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

what are you trying to accomplish other than being an ass?

I dunno if this is the thread for this, but I was wondering if sheik’s chain jacket is banned? It’s where you jump and use the chain so it comes out the frame you hit the ground, which makes the chain take the hit properties of the last move you used. So for example, the chain could do the damage+knockback of sheik’s dsmash…

The only reason I ask is because it will crash the game if it’s one of the first 2 moves used in a match.

^ Wow, if that isn’t banned then that should help Shiek jump up the tier list a bit.

EDIT: Okay, I didn’t see the crashing part.

I don’t see it being banned for being what it is (it’s a very difficult glitch to pull off with questionable payoff that doesn’t come anywhere close to breaking the game) but it’d be an automatic loss if Shiek crashes the game with it if it does stick around, so player beware.

(The freezing would probably be the only reason I see it being banned at all, personally)

lulz, alpha, Evo doesn’t care about smash. They just use it as a cash cow to keep the series from dying. Look at what they did both last year and this year. NVGA is where it’s at for smash, and… whaddya know… they’re having a tournament the same weekend as Evo, with all the smash games, and decent rulesets.

Srsly, don’t worry about Evo unless you’re playing a real fighter. They don’t worry about you.


Long and short of it:

I’m just telling AlphaZealot not to bother worrying about what rulesets Evo uses for Brawl. They don’t care about the smash series, and just use it as a cash cow. Not that I can blame them, especially with Brawl.

way to set our community back several years Interim.

Seriously, is there going to be any clarification of what is stalling with MK or are people just going to get DQ’d based on a “non-biased” judges arbitrary opinion?

hmm it is a tricky subject because brawl is a defensive fighter, where being defensive>>>offensive, so ppl will sometimes stall in other ways but basically this move is nearly useless after the first few cancels except for stalling.