(Jul. 18, 2014 4:17 AM)geetster99 Wrote: How about we wait for the video of gbt2 to be uploaded. That had both east cost and Toronto bladders the used f230 and would be the comparison that everyone wantsYeah then we can actually see how NC does against Toronto, but when exactly is Kei planning to upload that video?
The Case For Banning F230 From Zero-G Tournament Play
For Zero-G, I think Zankye uploaded at least an hour of footage of it, so you could try seeing there, for now.
So I've posted on the WBO a couple times about how I've tried to explain bans/F230's possible ban to my dad, and he didn't really seem to understand the concept. But anyways, we were having another discussion about it recently, and this post made me remember one idea he suggested:
What if, we limited the uses of F230 in Zero-G tournaments? According to the rules, Stalling Clause and Re-shoot Clause are limited to a certain amount of uses, and while these aren't very strongly enforced (at least in my experiences), F230 clause would work the same way, and (hopefully) be more closely monitored.
I understand that it would be difficult to keep track of who has used F230 how many times, but hosts/judges are already supposed to be recording uses of Stalling/Re-shoot Clause, as well as the customizations used for the Winning Combinations thread. If these are adhered to, then it shouldn't be that big of a jump to count how many times a player has used F230, and remind them accordingly.
Sorry for derailing the topic a bit, just wanted to get this up here while it was still fresh in my mind.
(Jul. 18, 2014 10:54 PM)TheBlackDragon Wrote:(Jul. 18, 2014 4:48 PM)The Supreme One Wrote: ...but we made a point of not using it too often & we didn't use it in our matches against each other.
I commend you guys for doing so. At this point, this is what it takes to have an interesting ZRG tournament (which is kind of sad, but if you have like-minded players who are willing to play without it you can have a great time anyway).
What if, we limited the uses of F230 in Zero-G tournaments? According to the rules, Stalling Clause and Re-shoot Clause are limited to a certain amount of uses, and while these aren't very strongly enforced (at least in my experiences), F230 clause would work the same way, and (hopefully) be more closely monitored.
I understand that it would be difficult to keep track of who has used F230 how many times, but hosts/judges are already supposed to be recording uses of Stalling/Re-shoot Clause, as well as the customizations used for the Winning Combinations thread. If these are adhered to, then it shouldn't be that big of a jump to count how many times a player has used F230, and remind them accordingly.
Sorry for derailing the topic a bit, just wanted to get this up here while it was still fresh in my mind.
Holy carp dude. That's actually a really good idea, kudos to the father-son thing.
One or two uses would be pretty cool, you could make it so you couldn't use it in the finals, but anywhere up to that would be awesome. I have reasoning for this, it isn't hard to see but I'm on a timed schedule
One or two uses would be pretty cool, you could make it so you couldn't use it in the finals, but anywhere up to that would be awesome. I have reasoning for this, it isn't hard to see but I'm on a timed schedule
That might be a good idea, simply because it's the best solution to make both sides happy. I'd say no using it more than 2-3 times per tournament. That's still a lot of F230 per person, but requires those who depend on it to find alternatives in order to win.
![[Image: jFAMV2B.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jFAMV2B.png)
I'd go for two uses, in a small tournament, you could use it 3/7 times? I think two is a good number, it'd follow suit with the uses of the re-shoot clause also.
(Jul. 18, 2014 11:18 PM)DrPepsidew Wrote: I'd go for two uses, in a small tournament, you could use it 3/7 times? I think two is a good number, it'd follow suit with the uses of the re-shoot clause also.I agree it's a good idea, but we should keep it the same for every tournamnet, because then people are going to start arguing what is "small". Plus with the argument of changing the tourney limit to 7 and changing the credits earned, and things like that going on, we would also have to take this into consideration which would make a lot of things complicated. I like the concept, but if you go deep into it you find faults.
(Jul. 19, 2014 12:46 AM)Lord Wrote:(Jul. 18, 2014 11:18 PM)DrPepsidew Wrote: I'd go for two uses, in a small tournament, you could use it 3/7 times? I think two is a good number, it'd follow suit with the uses of the re-shoot clause also.I agree it's a good idea, but we should keep it the same for every tournamnet, because then people are going to start arguing what is "small". Plus with the argument of changing the tourney limit to 7 and changing the credits earned, and things like that going on, we would also have to take this into consideration which would make a lot of things complicated. I like the concept, but if you go deep into it you find faults.
If there was a minimum 8 player Round Robin, there would be 7 rounds.
![[Image: 9ff5d708-ada9-4d9e-a353-d60f3c2fc6a2_zpsf8dc7f76.jpg]](http://s1303.photobucket.com/user/Bakubey13/media/9ff5d708-ada9-4d9e-a353-d60f3c2fc6a2_zpsf8dc7f76.jpg.html)
The whole "limited use" concept was rejected during the discussion of the Basalt ban, simply because it makes things too complicated.
Plus, in that case, you'd have no F230 until the finals, where everybody would pull it out, and then the three most important matches of the event would just be F230 vs. F230. I'd say it's all or nothing on this one.
I had reason to believe, from multiple PMs I recieved from TO bladers, that they didn't quite know how at the time I wrote this. Keep in mind this article is nearly 6 months old. I'm sure they've long since figured it out (given that this was really the first article written that actually addresses how to launch them).
Now, notice I said they (theoretically) didn't know how, not that they couldn't. Christopher Columbus once asked a group of men to stand an egg upright on a table. They couldn't do it. After they had all declared it was impossible, Columbus calmly took the egg back, crushed the bottom of the egg so as to make it flat, and stood it, perfectly upright, on the table.
He said, "You see? It is easy, now that I have shown you how."
Plus, in that case, you'd have no F230 until the finals, where everybody would pull it out, and then the three most important matches of the event would just be F230 vs. F230. I'd say it's all or nothing on this one.
(Jul. 17, 2014 3:21 AM)Leone19 Wrote: Just browsing and figured I'd post this. Please don't attack it- I know this is "repeating" a point, but I would like to point out that I was told how easy it was to master the F230 launch (and my "8 year old brother could do it in 2 minutes"), yet I also saw this:
TheBlackDragon Wrote:I really do not want to offend any of the players from Toronto, as I respect them for their advancements to the game and their exceptional competitive prowess, but the fact here seems to be that they are simply not launching Dragooon F230CF/GCF correctly.
I don't understand how Toronto players (some of the highest ranked in the world) aren't able to launch it correctly, if it truly is so simple.
I had reason to believe, from multiple PMs I recieved from TO bladers, that they didn't quite know how at the time I wrote this. Keep in mind this article is nearly 6 months old. I'm sure they've long since figured it out (given that this was really the first article written that actually addresses how to launch them).
Now, notice I said they (theoretically) didn't know how, not that they couldn't. Christopher Columbus once asked a group of men to stand an egg upright on a table. They couldn't do it. After they had all declared it was impossible, Columbus calmly took the egg back, crushed the bottom of the egg so as to make it flat, and stood it, perfectly upright, on the table.
He said, "You see? It is easy, now that I have shown you how."
![[Image: 68vfxj.jpg]](https://oi57.tinypic.com/68vfxj.jpg)
I don't want to start I massive argument now, but you only said they're not launching correctly, or never said they (theoretically) didn't know how.
I think both sides will have to be open minded for compromise, honestly. The idea of "limiting" its use should appeal to both sides. In general some of the people for the ban are really too close minded on this for something to be agreed, other than a flat-out complete ban. Banning a part in a "regular" format (not Limited) is a really huge deal- so maybe it'd be best if a compromise could be reached.
I think both sides will have to be open minded for compromise, honestly. The idea of "limiting" its use should appeal to both sides. In general some of the people for the ban are really too close minded on this for something to be agreed, other than a flat-out complete ban. Banning a part in a "regular" format (not Limited) is a really huge deal- so maybe it'd be best if a compromise could be reached.
Alright, but I'm telling you, I don't think Kei will be too happy with that idea.
And, TBH, for the reason I mentioned in the above post, I'm very opposed to it as well. IMO complete eradication is the only way to fix the problem completely.
"Incorrect" simply means you're not doing it right. Doing the wrong launch is still wrong, even if you do it well. Launching MSF-H Wyvang^2 GB145R2F with a straight shot is wrong, no matter how perfectly level and aimed your straight shot is.
And, TBH, for the reason I mentioned in the above post, I'm very opposed to it as well. IMO complete eradication is the only way to fix the problem completely.
"Incorrect" simply means you're not doing it right. Doing the wrong launch is still wrong, even if you do it well. Launching MSF-H Wyvang^2 GB145R2F with a straight shot is wrong, no matter how perfectly level and aimed your straight shot is.
I have a question; why do want this thing thing legal so bad? And why should any of us consider it unworthy of a ban?
I honestly don't think you even have much of a (non-financial) reason any more.
I honestly don't think you even have much of a (non-financial) reason any more.
I think that they should only ban it when it is used with CF or GCF, because using it in those combos is basically cheating... other than that it is a perfectly fair track be use.
Yes. It would only be banned on a specific setup (or I believe that's what Kei intends to do).
(Jul. 19, 2014 1:43 AM)TheBlackDragon Wrote: I have a question; why do want this thing thing legal so bad? And why should any of us consider it unworthy of a ban?
I honestly don't think you even have much of a (non-financial) reason any more.
I and some others just don't necessarily feel it'a huge of an issue as some make it out to be and some of the issues being stated are being over exaggerated/drama.
I've and others have had the reasons throughout the topic aside from financial, but if I keep restating what I've said- it'll be slammed, haha.
I'm just a bit dissapoined in the rudeness and drama this topic has created for people who disagree, too.
I'll try to gather it into a big post or somehting eventually, but since the majority of the arguments have been posted, perhaps we close the topic until a decision or a breakthrough is discovered? At this point, both sides are seeming to repeat.
Can't you just summarize the reason - maybe a couple sentences?
Like, I'm actually legit curious because I'm drawing a blank. XD
Like, I'm actually legit curious because I'm drawing a blank. XD
(Jul. 19, 2014 1:47 AM)Leone19 Wrote: I'll try to gather it into a post or somehting eventually, but since the majority of the arguments have been posted, perhaps we close the topic until a decision or a breakthrough is discovered? At this point, both sides are seeming to repeat.
You could always look through the topic.
To the other part of my post- this is really the only topic where members are rude or dramatic towards eachother. Since both sides can be found throughout the topic, I do have the suggestion of perhaps locking it until a temporary or permenent choice is made, but that's just me. Both sides have pretty much argued until the end of the Earth, haha.
Hosts already have to keep track of people's Stalling time, Reshoot clauses, and the tournament it's self. So adding this in my opinion will give them a hard time.
Just adding on to my previous argument of it being too complicated.
At this point I feel banning it with CF/GCF should happen if we ban it at all. That's been repeated several times so why not just come to the valid conclusion that that's the best way? We can't wait forever or it won't have any effect, because people may just as well start leaving, because of F230's strength. Then what will be the point?
Leone19 I think it should be left to the Advanced members for a final decision. So I agree that the closed to about the drama that's been happening. Plus everyone's just repeating the same arguments back and forth.
Just adding on to my previous argument of it being too complicated.
At this point I feel banning it with CF/GCF should happen if we ban it at all. That's been repeated several times so why not just come to the valid conclusion that that's the best way? We can't wait forever or it won't have any effect, because people may just as well start leaving, because of F230's strength. Then what will be the point?
Leone19 I think it should be left to the Advanced members for a final decision. So I agree that the closed to about the drama that's been happening. Plus everyone's just repeating the same arguments back and forth.
(Jul. 19, 2014 1:56 AM)Lord Wrote: Leone19 I think it should be left to the Advanced members for a final decision. So I agree that the closed to about the drama that's been happening. Plus everyone's just repeating the same arguments back and forth.
It should be left to the committee in the end, in my opinion- but yeah, no help in both sides repeating and ripping eachother at this point.
Discussions like this bring out the worst in people. It kinda stinks to be honest.
That would actually be nice. I'd suggest we close this (maybe open it back up for test results if there are any more at some point in the future) and ask the committee to make a decision. I think I speak for us all when I say this has been a long grind. I think it's time for this to finally end (of course, if the committee thinks we need more discussion, then so be it, but I'm kinda tired of this subject TBH and I don't think there's much less to argue about, LOL).
I'll ask 'em.
That would actually be nice. I'd suggest we close this (maybe open it back up for test results if there are any more at some point in the future) and ask the committee to make a decision. I think I speak for us all when I say this has been a long grind. I think it's time for this to finally end (of course, if the committee thinks we need more discussion, then so be it, but I'm kinda tired of this subject TBH and I don't think there's much less to argue about, LOL).
I'll ask 'em.
I haven't actually seen any discussion on this topic in the Advanced Forum in months. I thought this was long gone after Limited, but people still want it banned, so it would be best to revive Dark_Mousy's thread.
I'm happy we can finally agree on something, haha.
I feel we should definitely give the committee some time before asking for a final answer; this isn't a subject to rush for the end at this point, on either side.
I feel we should definitely give the committee some time before asking for a final answer; this isn't a subject to rush for the end at this point, on either side.
I just wanted to say one thing. If someone has an F230 in the BMAC thread should we encourage them to use it or not, since it's on the verge of being banned.
(Jul. 19, 2014 3:01 AM)Lord Wrote: I just wanted to say one thing. If someone has an F230 in the BMAC thread should we encourage them to use it or not, since it's on the verge of being banned.
I'd say let em use it. I mean, it probably won't get banned for a few months, and the tournament host will tell them if they can't use it.
![[Image: f759d58.gif]](https://i.imgsafe.org/f759d58.gif)
![[Image: rcFJUxo.png]](https://i.imgur.com/rcFJUxo.png)