Tournament rulesets have gone too far.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- The hot topic on Super Smash Bros today are the events that transpired on a recent tournament. While the match was ongoing, the tournament organizer stepped in, quit on the match as it was happening, and disqualified one of the players for so called stalling. Was he right in this?
Watch streams at:
► / hungrybox
Social Media:
► / liquidhbox
► / liquidhbox
Connect with Liquid fans across the globe on Liquid+
► tl.gg/lplusyou...
Video editor:
► / liquidchia
Follow and subscribe to keep up to date on all of my content. Click the bell next to the subscribe button to receive instant notifications on all uploads!
#Hungrybox #SmashBros #SuperSmashBros #SmashBrosUltimate
Okay, I'm confused. The Zelda's a stock down, not approaching the opponent, and somehow everyone else suffered? Even if it's stalling, it doesn't even help him. Just let him timeout. It's his loss.
not how the game works, timers there for a reason
It stalls the event that wants to run efficiently. Anyone that sad should just be DQ'd as they clearly don't want to play anyway.
@@epicking8341 what do you mean not how the game works? you and dark are saying the same thing lmao
@@TehWhiteTiger If the event can't figure out how to account for the amount of time a match can take that seems like their problem. I assume there are usually rules that exist in order to combat this, such as a hard deadline.
@@TehWhiteTiger I mean, it's stalling but i don't think you get it, if it goes to time you can figure out stalling, mid match is incredibly stupid and poor management
They should call this sort of "stall" the "Mexican Stand-off" and just make it legal under such a definition.
BASED TAKE
BUT we need all TO's to have the Iconic whistle sound on standby. This way it can be played to further set the mood and tension👀
As a Mexican, I approve of that amigo.
100% Agreed
You have my vote.
You can't DQ a guy down a stock for running out the clock. If he runs out the clock he uses, he's not gonna do that!
Unless he gave up and is just being petty but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt lol
This is stalling when losing the most petty form of stalling there is
@@Inksploded but the issue is even if he’s stalling he would have lost either way Zelda was down a stock idt you realize the climbers are alot tougher then they look if mastered the ice climbers a force to be reckoned with in the hand of a rookie they aren’t a threat the other way around tho is a different story
@@Astrea946 yes but when down a stock youve yo aprouch Ik its iceclimbers but if youve no insentive to even try Just sd and end the game
@@Inksploded the mentality of a loser everyone
stalling is an ok strategy in competitive play, it's infinite stalling through exploit or oversight which is uncountable that is banned
exactly
Not only is it an okay strategy, it can actually be hype. Watched a Ganondorf (!) time out a Duckhunt recently, it was incredible.
Facts. Nothing about what either player is doing is making the match uncompetitive like ledge camping in melee is. Both players have the option to interact and are choosing not to. This is why the timer exists.
@@MandalorianRaider I wanna see that
@@opal9583 I wish I had a vod or at least I'd had the good sense to record the match on my phone. It took a hot minute for me to realize what the Ganondorf player was doing, and then I started laughing maniacally.
It's on both players for not approaching. 20 seconds is absolutely nothing compared to other cases of stalling that still aren't DQ'd in competition. This is an absolute pisstake from the TO and im glad Hbox called this out,
It's not on the player who is ahead to approach EVER. If anything, the player who is behind is obligated to approach simply because he will lose once the timer runs out. Don't think anything here was deserving of a DQ. If the player who's a stock down wants to take his time, it's his decision, it just means less time he has to make a comeback.
@@memeconnoisseur3002 It's a fighting game - you're meant to interact but you're not always meant to go in aggressively, that much is very obvious.
Being ahead doesn't mean you are not responsible for playing the game, however you ARE fully understood for being more patient and less interactive.
We agree that he didn't deserve a DQ whatsoever, man the smash community can be way too presumptuous with its need to be "exciting" sometimes.
This was his second time stalling down a game as well
@@DunkTasticMan I agree. When I saw this clip and he did it again, I was kinda over it. Dude needs to make his brain work faster if he is "thinking" in that scenario. Regardless as lame as it is to see, I really dont think the guy deserved the DQ.
@@DunkTasticMan and his second time losing i'd imagine too lol - his fault and his loss
Not only is he clearly showing bias by dq’ing the Zelda down a stock who will LOSE if they stall, i feel like he dq’d because they were running his content and he chose his content over his own tourney
I think so too. Unfortunately this short-sighted decision to keep the stream moving will probably cost him his ability to run future events.
Uh, no. Stalling is stalling. Just cause someone would lose if they stalled doesn't mean you should no longer ban them, in fact, refusing to dq someone who is stalling cause they're a stock down would be biased. Stalling isn't bannable cause its gives any "advantage", it's against the rules and bannable precisely because it ruins the fun and entertainment of tournaments and content.
That being said, playing defensive isn't stalling and it was an ego dq
@@Dizastermaster.You don't need to DQ someone for stalling if they're down that's literally what the clock is for. Stalling DQs are for when stalling doesn't lead to a loss.
not even bro just realized he could dq someone and wanted to pretty sad tbh
@@nahometesfay1112I’d argue it’s worse when they’re losing, as they’re essentially throwing.
If you’re doing that for 2 minutes I’d assume you’re purposefully wasting people’s time.
What's the point of a timer if we aren't going to let somebody play around it? If he wants to time out and lose then he loses. I don't understand how this could be a dq.
Pretty much summarizes everything 👍
Definitely seems like way too hasty of a decision, especially when compared to much more egregious moments of stall
This, there shouldn't be a timer, and it should be stock only if that is how he wants to run the tournament.
So ruining schedules more than necessary and ruining literally everyone's day just cause you're having a temper tantrum about losing is okay because there's a hard limit... What?
@@deadersurvival4716 if the timer exists why shouldn't you let people slow down the game for an advantage
It's not like it's an uncompetitive strategy that ruins the game, so I don't really see anything wrong with it.
@@micahfurlow2624 The problem isn't slowing the game down, because that's not what's happening.
This is stalling, and it is, and should be, punished in most, if not all, competitive circles across every genre.
Why? Because why would you be allowed to basically throw a temper tantrum and ruin everyone else's time, instead of just taking the loss (or at least TRYING to turn it around) and playing the game?
Man was banned for being boring and the ban was on a whim. You can tell based off the tournament holders reaction that it was an impulsive decision .
Yup...
based, ban boring players more
@@garth4712 nah. This isn’t tiktok. We don’t ban people just because organizers have squirrel attention spans.
@@garth4712 lets also add family guy funny montage clips and subway surfers gameplay footage to the stream setup while we’re at it
@@garth4712 People play smash to like, y'know, win? Smash doesn't have to be exiting 100% of the time. When you're going into a tourney you're not always gonna get lost in the sauce, you're playing for a cash prize after all. "Oooh. Me bored. Me no like player. Unga bunga ban him!!!!!!!"
I completely agree with the "let the timer run out when a game has started" stance. If someone wants to camp and waste time, let them. It's a legitimate strategy and while yes it is lame af, it shouldn't be bannable.
This situation was even funnier because the Zelda player was very probably gonna lose anyway, idk why you'd bend the rules to DQ him. Just let the guy lose and avoid unecessary conflict.
Also the argument of "he's delaying the event" is so dumb, that's literally what the timer is there for. If you can't account for games going to time then your event is simply poorly organised.
Yessir! Finally.
so literally every smash event ever run is poorly organized? I'm not saying your wrong, but that's the claim you're making.
@@vegaspony If that is what happens, then yes. If you know you only have so much time for the tourney, you should organize the time limit of each match around ensuring that you do not go over time from players trying to do what they feel is the best option to win their match.
@@17Master it is what happens.
@@vegaspony I mean yh. If you're planning a tourney then you should always allow enough time for every game to properly finish, even if they go to time. And when a lot of games inevitably don't go to time, you just get more downtime which can be helpful in a lot of cases as a TO.
TO: "I wanted to gauge people's reactions to if I changed the rules!"
*He says, as he already DQd someone where he could've easily asked an opinion after the match like a normal person*
EXACTLY! And people think this is ok? Nooooooo nononono!
Nah I was in the discord for the tournament when this happened. The Zelda player got harassed for stalling and everyone was for the DQing of the Zelda player
Exactly what I was going to come here to say.
He just said that as a complete back-pedal to make it seem like a discussion, rather than an impulse piss-take emotional decision.
@@thots_n_prayersthat ish bm
@@thots_n_prayers doesnt matter, if ur gonna do that then remove the timer.
One of the main issue I have with people in the competitive scene is that they want the game to be played a certain way and nothing more. There's a timer and stocks for a reason so you can avoid situations where people stall. The Ice Climbers player had a clear lead and didn't have to approach, the Zelda player was losing and had to approach but chose not too. Yes it would of been boring to wait for the timer to end but thats what the timer is for. Who knows how the match would of ended, the Zelda player could of won but we'll never know because TO didn't want their stream to be boring. They shouldn't be worried about time because all matches are timed and will end on time regardless if players stall. I seen it so many times where people will get mad at players for stalling but it's usually because they deem it not hype. We gotta let go of this weirdo behavior of dictating what is and isn't proper play. Its a damn tournament, people play to win even if the style of play isn't something you're into.
This kind of reminds me of the most infamous Pokémon match of all time. The two competitors switched Pokémon for several hundred turns each, but never triggering the stalling clause because technically they were trying to make an opening for themselves, and not repeating the exact same switches too many times in a row. The final turn count was over 1200.
It wasn’t that serious
I mean for the match in the video, Icies were gonna win anyway
@@gokufromfortnite867 I just meant Hbox’s analysis that by going to the ledge the Zelda was making a legitimate play. Obviously this isn’t as extreme as that example. I just mean that in both instances, a play that looks kind of like stalling is actually legitimate competitively.
Not really, as one of the players won the match.
@@loggeek What do you mean? Somebody won the match in both instances.
The point was as a strategy it was technically competitively valid.
What I take this as: he didn't want to watch a match that looked kinda boring
That is such a shitty thing to do
As a more traditional fighting game player I can’t help but notice that Smash players tend to react with a lot of hostility towards defensive game plans. Kind of a culture shock because over in Street Fighter land it’s the opposite really and aggressive players are usually the butt of the joke, but even so with us it rarely goes beyond a joke whereas in Smashville somebody will throw a fucking crab at you because you’re not constantly holding forward
Yeah it’s honestly annoying
I play pretty aggressive and whine I don’t like fighting defensive players that’s kind of the point isn’t it
I also wait when they equate zoning to camping almost as if they think projectiles are the devil of it doesn’t lead to a massive combo
And that’s coming from someone who exclusively plays smash
It's not so much hostility towards defensive game plans, but hostility towards slow game plans. It's like when you get blue balled from what could have been a fun drive by traffic.
This.
hahahah you haven't seen minecraft players. I used to do pvp in minecraft competitively took a break for a few years and came back last year just to see what things are like. people will start complaining that you're not holding forward and letting them combo you LOL.
Blame Melee and how aggressive plays could get in it. You can't argue it's not hype when it goes off but...
So I guess every Snake player ever is automatically DQ'd
oh shit you have a point let this man cook
@@edfreak9001 no, cooking his nades is the problem 😤
Lol..."Kept you waiting huh?"
No, shooting projectilea is an action, to which you can react, and it also forces the player to react. The zelda was simply refusing to fight if he cant have the other person do the approach. Thqts not skill, thats disagreeableness.
As someone outside of competitive smash, it LOOKS like stalling. But like, the timer is the timer. They had kills, they had damage racked up. I’d rule not stalling.
Thank you.
Exactly. Ice climber had a extra stock, so he had NO obligation to chase Zelda down. And if Zelda wanted to stall him, fine. Let him lose.
also you have to understand that even if this was stalling the zelda player was only hurting themselves. If the Zelda player ran away the rest of the match and went to timer they would lose the game and thus the set.
The only person they'd be hurting by running out the clock is themselves. So I mean it's their funeral.
DQ after 20 seconds? Recording a video while driving? The TO is determined to make bad decisions.
i definitly agree with you that he acted way too fast and that he shouldn't have disqualified anyone. now its his tournament in the end its up to him how he treats everyone, just don't compete at his tournament if he handles things like this.
Exactly. I'm not going to a tournament, only to get DQ'd for a TOs' "learning experience." That's ridiculous.
@@Spyder-Marth That was his 63rd event. Nothing like this has ever happened before.
@@treyara4852 quot defending your group member when they fuck up.
@@GlorpLorp It's his tournament, therefore his rules. You don't like it? Go to a different tournament.
@Chris Pham good mentality for killing a scene. What's next? Will using side b get you banned?
Why is this against the rules? you don't want it to go like this. Lower the time on the clock. This is perfectly fine.
It's fine for the person down a stock to get frustrated that the person in the lead refused to approach and camping. So you camp back.
The Zelda was a stock down lol... How is this delaying the game? If the Zelda doesn't approach they lose when the time goes down. Ice Climbers had no reason to approach while one stock up and minimal damage.
That said, in combat sports, any lack of engagement will be penalized with loss of points and it doesn't matter if you're at an advantage or not. It's hard to say, really. I get combat sports and eSports are two different things but they're somewhat comparable. People want to see a spectacle and no engagement is boring.
Great points 👍
That’s an interesting comparison. To me it seems like people playing for timeouts would fall under that lack of engagement too. Like if I play sonic (meme example but he’s the best at timeouts) than am I taking away from viewer engagement by playing optimally and guaranteeing a win through timeout?
@@OdaGoda957 I think in that case someone needs to decide for their tournament if they want to ban certain tactics like that. In my opinion, it’s fair game if there isn’t anything specifically banning it.
@@gingeral253 agreed, it should be an across the board rule. Because if we are talking about banning unfun tactics that’s a real discussion. This instance felt petty to me
There's way more money involved in physical sports right now, and much more "business" involved. Physical sports is an entertainment medium, but esports hasn't reached tha part, and is still, mostly, a truly competitive scene. Rules like that make no sense from a competitive standpoint, otherwise you'd just be forcing bad matchups to take fights for the sake of fighting more or less.
"Is that ball invincible?"
"Yeah."
*SD's*
Unintentional comedy gold
Multiple things can be true at the same time
1. The Zelda was indeed stalling
2. Did they deserve to be banned? No.
3. Does the icies that’s a stock up have to approach since he’s winning? Absolutely not
4. Is it degenerate gameplay? Yes
Ban degenerate play.
Zelda should aprouch the one down has to aprouch
@@Sonick92 no because that bans literally every zoner, Snake, Duck Hunt, Wii Fit, Villager, Isabelle, Min Min, Steve, The Links, Zelda and Samus are gone, but you'd also end up banning characters that slow matches down like Wario. Degenerate play is annoying but there isn't anything wrong with it, you'll see it happen in tons of real sports, there have been football, european, matches were people just pass for like 10-15 minutes when they have a lead, and it's very degenerate but you wouldn't ban it because it's a valid strategy. Even then the definition if degenerate isn't even universal so how do you decide what to ban?
So wrong. 💀
@@Inksploded Zelda is a zoner, her approach options are bad, realistically it's checkmate the ICs can just counter zone with desync walls. People do actually do thing like this to give themselves time to think, it''s why youll see people stand on angel plat for ages. There isn't a lot of moments where you can actually think.
Secondly, your playing Ult online, Online ult is patience heaven, it's a good place for zoners and patience testers, this is just what you sign up for imo.
This is the issue when everyone thinks Smash is this fast paced Melee like video game. It’s a fighting game (in our eyes). A game that can be played slow or fast. A game that can be done defensively or offensively. It isn’t always run at the opponent and hit buttons
True. Smash players are just dumb for thinking the only fair and square way to play the game is to go braindead at the opponent and attack. Like dude, camping and stalling is always an option since you're able to punish the opponent's mistakes. Plus, there's a timer for a reason.
THIS. I NEVER complain about people stalling if they are doing so tactically. Heck, I never get super upset when I face a campy Sonic online, either. I just play the game. I'm in a zone where I am thinking "how to approach" not "this Sonic is campy and lame af he should sd irl!!" I love watching drawn-out SSBU matches because it adds a new layer to the game, unless we're talking about collusion.
Too bad this community is full of "if he don't go aggro 99% of the time, he is a lame player" type of people.
Well depending on your definition stalling should be banned
At least in cases like melee’s sing stalk or leach bomber as that makes them unreachable by the rest of the cast but just not approaching isn’t stalling at best it’s zoning and at worst it’s camping
Willie pep one of the greatest boxers of all-time and he once won a round without throwing a single punch. Evasiveness and patience are part of fighting too .
If Hungrybox is questioning your tournaments , it is not a good sign.
15:15 "It's not toxic it's optimal"
*M2K liked that*
Smash cage 4'33
I swear ultimate wifi tournaments are already a joke due to the awful netcode, and hosts like this aren't making it any better.
Stalling should only be defined as "choosing not to interact or abusing invincibility to prevent interaction to force a win condition. If both players aren't choosing to interact in a 'unsportmanlike' way, then its up to the TO to step in and continue the match." Stalling in general is hard to pin point and say whats right and whats wrong but ultimately should be decided after the match. Down 1 and not interacting is not stalling, it was up to the Zelda to make a move to win. Icees was j chilling 😎
Real stalling is really hard to do outside of maybe playing sonic in ultimate. Playing around the clock is also part of the tactics in Smash, this is not that big of a deal. Sure you can argue some sets are a bit more boring when they are played slow (like zomers vs rushdown), but that's part of the deal with ultimate.
What’s with all the dq drama all the sudden? Is it just me or is it weird that all these events have been happening very close to one another?
I’d say the fox one is pretty valid, throwing a controller at someone or a crowd is ban worthy. The Pokémon TCG one and this one is just foul on the judge and TOs side.
@@ProjectLuark Agreed. Just seems like there are cases left and right that are either drastically justified or drastically not
Stalling vs camping
True stalling like Hbox said is running the time in such a way that your opponent can’t hit you no matter what they do.
Camping means you’re just trying to avoid direct interaction with the opponent but the opponent can still reach you if they read you properly or react fast enough.
True stalling should be against the rules, but camping, while lame, is fine
Facts
And this was stalling, the second half the Zelda was trying to make it impossible for the icies to do anything and not actually playing the game
@@shkkrimp7344 How is it stalling if Zelda is down a stock? If time runs out Zelda loses, so he gains nothing by "stalling". The reason why stalling is banned is because it leads to one player getting an advantage and winning the match by stalling. But that's not what happened here.
@@SchemingGoldberg do you not know what the word stalling means?
As someone in the twitter comments points out, the TO premeturely gave the win to someone with the same sponsor as him, both sporting the GDN tag, makes it seem pretty purposeful at that point
He definitely jumped the gun. Trying to bait out an attack is a valid tactic in most fighting games, I'd say it was pretty obvious he was trying to do that.
Going afk isn't baiting out an attack, and in the other half of the videos he is avoiding all interaction
@@shkkrimp7344 If he is actively dodging things that isn't afk my dude.
@@fluidwolf sitting on the ledge isn't dodging things
@Ryuho the Wolf and don't call me "my dude" you weird ass furry
@@shkkrimp7344 Sitting on the platform isn’t stalling when the other player can approach and attack whenever they want to
Yeah, it's technically not stalling if both players are not approaching.
I feel like running away a bit is also fine as well. At least there's interaction. I think the TO definitely made a bad call.
It's stalling if you run away with a stock lead to time out the clock. The Zelda player was clearly a stock behind trying to change the tides of the match.
LOL
You honestly nailed it . After game one, going into game two. I was getting punished after every grab and interaction . Icy combos are insane .
So after I lost my second stock I realized something and thought of a plan to turn the tides.
I needed an animation to fake my SD, and trick him into approaching . Then I needed to just test our run speed to see if I could put run home, Also I noticed that every stock he goes to the side and taunts.
So decided I’d bait him to the corner, get a reversal and punish him off stage for a kill to even it out (it’s worked before). The bait worked but I couldn’t finish .
So as you said, I thought I’d test the waters again. But this time, I wanted to allow the timer to hit 3 minutes just to slow the pace and tempo down of the game so I can make one move to claim Center stage, place phantom, and play the mid range, long range game. So this time, I knew if I disengage, he’s probably just wait on the other side like he did EVERY Stock. And he did ….
I wanted to make my move at the 3 minute mark because I thought I could take the stock in 30-60 seconds, then play the last 2 minutes very carefully till the last second . I was ready to use every second of the clock, and chip him down, and ware him out .
If I didn’t get dq, I would of ran as close as Center stage as I could get, place phantom to lock him in corner, and force him to react to my phantom. And since I have Center, I’d be able to have the slight advantage.
I knew he wouldn’t have any reads on me if I threw him off.
Cant believe this blew up 😂.. oops
I need to do a vod review of this set lool
as a Zelda player, who is friends and on a team with an ICs player, this is kind of just how the matchup works. If a Zelda tries to hold forward against ICs like an Elite Smash Roy she’s going to lose because she doesn’t have the options for that. In a lot of scenarios, the only real thing Zelda can do to avoid getting caught in the ICs blender is play more defensively and force them to come to you, and then punish them for it, which is what you were doing. Is it lame? Sure, but it’s either ‘play lame’ or ‘lose.’ Take your pick
@@dougpouncey there's a difference between playing defensive and just not playing the game. This clip was the latter
@@shkkrimp7344 If you’re talking about Hyushi, you’re on crack.
Suuuure you were. And the second time? Was that bit of stalling a part of your masterful scheme as well?
So not too experienced in competitive Ultimate. But Treyara could've tried a bit of initial aggression to see if it was actual stalling. The invincibility wore off, they had options to pressure and see what Hyushi was doing. (Some Neutral-B's. Some fake-out aerials. Something to stir a reaction from Hyushi aside from just standing at the other side and waiting) Also Trey was at 0% while being 1 stock up. Hyushi would have to have done a huge comeback and any deliberate stalling would've not been beneficial to Hyushi in the long run.
When Trey finally approached, Hyushi reacted and the fight seemed to carry on as normal. The running away from Trey might also be a bit suspect but given the context of; "Trying to think of a comeback on the spot." it made sense he was trying to get in a favorable position. But what did not help was Trey giving up on the chase to just let Hyushi continue to stand there.
Is it stalling? Partially yes but it's a disadvantageous stall on Hyushi's part. It gave him no real benefit as he was losing and the timer was the proof of that. Let the timer run and make the proper call as the match plays out. The opponent not approaching then giving up on pursuit despite being in favor of making it a 2-stock did NOT do any favors.
Also yes the TO should've stayed back or used Discord/other communication pings to tell the competitors to wrap it up first. Give warnings mid-fight before issuing any DQs. Even if the result was set in stone, a mid-fight cutoff by the TO and a DQ was kind of uncalled for.
not sure how these sets are viewed in the pro smash ruleset, but i think the fact that the zelda is down a stock makes this acceptable. Either to strategize, break the momentum, get a breather is fine only since he is the one down, meaning that although it is a boring match, the fact is that the zelda will lose if he doesnt start fighting again… On the other hand, if the zelda was up and holding the lead and then starts with super campy, edge, stall and range tactics to force the enemy to recklessly approach, and if the enemy doesn’t approach , zelda would win regardless, that’s when the stall becomes very scummy and even unsportsmanlike to justify a DQ i’d say.
No I would disagree it’s a bit scummy but as a zoner such a tactic would be an optimum option
It’s boring but as long as there was interactions (as in Zelda was setting up phantom and find fire and actively threatening the space and hitting the opponent I would argue it’s in no way stalling and generally wouldn’t be campy
Sure spectators prefer rush down and life or death fights but a slower more methodical gameplan is still perfectly acceptable
@@jmurray1110 hmm well it's fine to disagree since I was simply looking at it from the perspective of someone competing, but what you said makes total sense if you factor in the audience watching... since in the end tournaments are a show, and without a show, there is no $. I think the solution of zoning > doing nothing (which is still better than nothing) is a boring one though... To please audiences I think the best is to "revise" a ruleset in which the community and tournament organizers agree (kinda like no items/no hazards or ban steve movement lol). But factoring and defining too many things like acceptable levels of "idle"/"zoning" and all will prolly be too much of hassle for players to keep up and lead to even more controversial DQ, unless someone makes a modded version that applies these changes for you xD, so in the end it still stays in a tough spot but that is the best i can think of lol.
Is it though? She did it 4 times.
Twice on the ledge, and twice of running across the stage being chased and doing nothing.
This isn't stalling for a win or a come back, it may be stalling out of spite.
You can't expect someone to approach you on the ledge camping when you're losing either.
Stalling as a rule shouldn't be a thing, why is the timer there for then? Just let it run out. If you worried about "viewer engagement" or some BS make the matches 4 minutes.
I think we just need a more specific definition of stalling so it only encompasses tactics that are basically impossible to contest like all the melee ones and infinite dimensional cape because there’s no counter play
According to the chat, there wasn't even a specific rule against it. I know people are talking forgiveness, but this TO needs to unambiguously admit that they screwed up first. Can any Zelda player, or really any zoner or hit-and-run type player trust the guy? What happens when they feel compelled to approach at a bad time because they don't want to lose for "stalling"? He needs to actually recognize the effect he has on the competitive integrity of his events now.
I think he said he was wrong for that already
@@ashervanmaanen3353 Still, he put a huge L on the community. This got buzz FAST. He needs to make amends to the player he sabotaged.
Yes, because if you stand there at ledge when you're behind and the timer is ticking no one will approach you.
Especially if you do it a 2nd time.
After having someone ground chase you across the map twice and you don't try to punish them.
That isn't even zoning, that is expecting someone to be stupid.
Bruhhhh, neither player is approaching. That's not stalling the game, that's a mutual agreement to break away and ready for the next approach
@Hungrybox that was eloquently said I highly respect the ability to teach instead of throwing stones and the TO. Good stuff bro 🙌
🙏🏾
Just because the TO has the attention span of a squirrel doesn't mean they should be DQd. If he wants people to play with NO option of time out or stalling, make it 3 min matches. Otherwise, like you said, the timer is the timer. If someone wants to stall all of it, and risk losing over that? On them.
Bro, I can't stand the smash community, lmao. People here blaming the Zelda player for the wrong reasons. Stalling should only be bannable when there's no stock nor percentage lead (such as the case of sm4sh Lima vs Zack.)
Maybe not stalling, but playing very passive and overly heavy on the neutral because it's relatively safe. Scummy but not stalling.
18:44 to the end was a great moment of rationality all round and I seriously appreciate this approach, something I'm seeing a lot from these videos
Even if Zelda did stall, the ICs stopped too. Didn't even fire projectiles. At worst, let the round rock, then warn both about stalling. Straight punishing one guy but letting his opponent advance is bull and arbitrary as hell. If he punished both I think he'd be draconian, but he'd at least be fair.
Zelda was baiting Ice Climbers, working the edge, but Climbers didn't move at all closing the distance. They were ahead with low damage, and using the bait to deal damage to increase effective KO tactics.
Knowing what Stalling is and relaying those rules to the players is NEEDED to know what the rules of the tournament are. Without any of that info, then why should the edge play of Zelda and Climbers be DQ on the side of Zelda?
Why would ice climbers have to approach? They’re ahead lmao
@@Frilleon Yeah but then that just makes it even worse, they're both at fault. It's not like ICs can't camp either, we know they can
@@illford Sorry but the Ice climbers are not at fault at ALL. 0 percent of the blame. If a fighter has a stock lead, they can play however they like. The Zelda player however wasn't even pushing buttons or throwing projectiles which seemed more like griefing.
@TW wow way to place blame. Both were stalling end of story. It doesn't matter what you say. It's still stalling no matter what
@@lightninggear0131 why would the ice climbers player have a responsibility to approach? he's ahead so if he wins if the zelda player doesn't approach ever
I guess zoners aren't even allowed to play anymore. He wasn't even doing any sort of lame sort of exploitative stalling stuff, he literally just went to the edge of the stage and stood there.
I'm not defending the DQ, but if you think that what this Zelda did is anything like typical zoner gameplay then you don't know what zoning is. It's one thing to run away and spam projectiles, but it's completely another thing to stand in the corner doing nothing.
@@drakejoshofficialyoutubech5569 Then why not go after the Ice Climbers? They could've been tossing their relatively low commitment ice chunks to harass the Zelda, but chose not to.
@Drake&Josh Official RUclips Channel So going by your logic the Ice Climbers were also stalling because they didn't leave their side of the stage either. Your logic is flawed.
@@HeatCheque No they weren't lmao. When you have the stock lead you shouldn't be forced to approach because your opponent doesn't want to approach.
Plus I specifically said that I wasn't defending the DQ, as in I didn't think this was a case of stalling egregious enough to warrant a DQ.
Just because I didn't spoon feed everyone my opinion on how the Ice Climbers fit into this doesn't mean my logic is flawed. And for the record, I didn't feel the need to give my opinion on the ICs player because I was specifically addressing the comment that said "I guess zoners aren't allowed to play the game anymore" in response to a clip where a Zelda player literally doesn't play the game for 20 seconds straight and gets unjustly DQed for it.
@Drake&Josh Official RUclips Channel it's still stalling tho even with what you just said
Kahamsha had a rage moment, then tried to walk it back after the fact. It happens. Hopefully he grew from the backlash and will improve.
I don’t really understand the Zelda player was a stock down so I don’t get why he got DQ’d. it doesn’t help the Zelda player. The timer is the timer I totally agree with HBox. This is just like gameplay I mean I don’t know there’s no DQ here really…
All I see is powertripping TO's.
1:18 It was actually closer to 38 seconds of nothing happening until IC approach 507 to 429. And then add 333 to 328, so another 5 seconds of no input from zelda. Are smash rules on stalling just based on techniques that the opponent will have a hard time to stop/catch, based on preventing extraneous extension of matches, both, or something else?
Thank you for exposing this corrupt TO. I can guarantee that he won’t be getting any attention from me anytime soon.
That zelda is hella stalling
@@Inksploded not at all. The Zelda was down a stock. How was it stalling? If anything the ice climbers could run at him but chose not to cause he had the stock lead.
I don't think the TO is corrupt, and it is his tournament too, but I agree that the TO should not have DQd the Zelda. I can see a TO being frustrated enough to step when a wacky situation like that happens, even if it is the wrong decision.
@@Inksploded sure, but they are stalling within the allowed ruleset and playing to what they determined is their win condition. The ONLY real reason I can see that would deem this as stalling to negatively impact the event or whatever idc, which doesn't work here since icies wasn't doing this either, was that the zelda was not throwing unpunishable projectiles that they obviously could have done to take space and induce the icies to approach. If you consider this situation to be DQ worthy, Smash (or fighting games in general?) is just not for you.
The TO is also probably not corrupt, and you don't matter to them? @TacoTonyTTV
Did you watch the whole video? Hbox and the TO talking at the end?
I really dislike the direction smash and the fgc at large are going where defensive play is looked down upon, it's especially bad in smash though, the amount of hatred Hbox got for simply playing well proves that to me. As far as I'm concerned, the ICs player wasn't interacting either
This. If I have to play defensively for the win, I FLIPPING WILL. The crowd and the TOs will never understand unless they are put in the same situation. Sadly, they never will.
Respect that he acknowledges it probably wasn’t the best move, I don’t think he deserves to get absolutely slammed tho. I doubt he’ll ever do something like that again with the way everyone responded to him 😂
Anyone who is on the verge of losing like that is going to do whatever they can to win. If he got into one bad situation, he loses. They wanted to find an opportunity to make a comeback, like anyone would.
The TOs consent to events such as this the moment they decide to host a tournament. If you don’t want that to happen, make that clear from the beginning.
Who am I kidding? Almost no TO can deliver proper communication to begin with. TOs are the reason I don’t enter tournaments anymore.
In that situation, the Zelda has a win condition if iceys engage, iceys win condition is if Zelda doesn't engage. It most likely ended up being a dq because waiting 5 minutes wouldn't be good content. There was no collusion and both players we're playing to win that match, not to entertain. In the end, they should've kept going
As a personal mod for Kahamsha, I will say this definitely was a mistake on his part. It was interesting to see him take action like this and not let it ride, but due to the conditions, I don’t support that decision he made. But hey, besides that, Kahmi is a cool fuckin dude, and I’m at least happy to see him admit when he’s wrong and experiment a little, but I do hope next time he doesn’t take it SO far.
The thing is, if both players can easily reach each other, they are both not trying to interact at all, and there’s still 3 minutes on the clock, that’s not stalling, and I don’t know how it is.
it's not stalling because he isn't intentionally doing something that makes them invulnerable or inaccessible.
But he is... that is exactly what he's doing
@@shkkrimp7344 standing on one side of the stage doesn't make you invincible or inaccessible. He also approached and then went back to the other side. The ICs player could easily approach
@@zachariahanderson4203 I'm not taking about that I'm talking about after when he was avoiding the icies like the plague
A TO shouldn't do a live DQ during a match. Only time that should is during a match is when quality of the connection of the match goes hay wire or a ban combo during a match. The TO should just wait for the timeout to happen then give warnings to BOTH players about stalling. IC and the Zelda did not do any actions towards each other. Unless the TO has those rules stated before the tournament. The DQ was not the correct call at all by the TO.
Exactly. No professional management.
My biggest takeaway here is how much of a disaster smash 4 was
Round just started and both players had stock parity.
Lima and Captain Zack also got two warnings, they literally showed them the written rules at it was EVO GFs. And they still got to continue the match afterwards.
Just forcing quit and DQing a player who's down a stock, without warning, is complete bs.
Neither of them moved for those 20 seconds how the hell is it only the Zelda's job to move and the ice climbers are allowed to stall as well?
Icees was playing the game both before and after. Zelda DQ is justified all she did was run away constantly like a child on wifi
Zelda was literally attacking at the same time as the ice climbers
@@jmurray1110 There were two notable situations where she just spent time running and didn't try to punish them for chasing her back to back. Then the two ledge scenarios where she had the range with her projectiles to initiate safely.
You're really gonna disagree with the top smash player in the world?
a rule should be made that
the player who have a stock advantage should be oblige to move first if such a case happen to bypass the stalling problem
But this rule should apply ONLY if the only win condition left available for a player who have a stock disadvantage happen to be to stall. " a player who need either to stall or the opponent to Suicide isnt consider a win condition"
For 4 reason
#1 Keep the public entertain
#2 the player might loose the stock advantage but still have other win condition compared to the other player
#3 for the staff or worker if a room where the tournament is currently hold and happen to be the same room for other game and have a time limit to make a game rotation this rule should be apply too
4# it allow to both player to restart on equal footage forcing it to create a situation where the skill of the player is what will decide the issue of the match and not a time or a win condition
Making it fair for both party
Yeah you loose a stock advantage but you still have many other option which wasnt the case for the opponent
which is why this rule apply since its not the fault of either player to be stuck in such a situation
I dont think the zelda was staling, but on the other hand that game against sonic was def staling.
Zelda was down and not playing the game aka stalling
@@Inksploded The way I see it, if zelda was just running away when the ice climbers was approaching, I would consider it staling, but in that case, he just waited for his opponent. There's a difference between staling and camping.
It’s weird cuz on Lan it wouldn’t necessarily be a problem BUT on wifi, 30 seconds of disengaging can get you booted form a match, even 30secs of movement,stationary spam and other non-engaging actions can get you kicked by the Wi-Fis program.
I think the TO was in the wrong for being a bit arbitrary here, but I do think we should have stronger non-interactivity rules in smash. These have been very successful in my sport (fencing), and they were recently strengthened again so that repeated infractions can cause both players to be disqualified from a tournament. I get that people "play to win" and have nothing against people who use "lame" strategies, but I don't see that as a good reason to avoid introducing rules that discourage non-interactive play. After all, the community ultimately decides what "winning" means.
you unfortunately cannot compare fencing to Smash. both players don't have the same tools or even really play by the same rules. Punishing "inactivity" has literally no effect on say, a Roy, but absolutely ruins the gameplan of zoners/hit and run characters.
@@TheRkyeet both players have exactly the same tools-- on the character select screen. But this aside, the analogy isn't as imperfect as you might think. First of all, there's a difference between defensive play-- shooting projectiles, throwing out retreating hitboxes, keeping big distance but taking space if it's given up-- and play that is clearly designed to minimize or eliminate interactions, even if not strictly unbeatable. Secondly, in fencing there are certainly some fencers (e.g. unusually tall ones with longer arms) who would rather keep big distance and intercept your attack rather than making an attack of their own. Their fencing is still clearly interactive, full of attempts to bait and throw off the opponent's distance, and easily distinguished from non-combativity. I get that there is likely some additional nuance in smash, but I wish we'd talk this through and come up with standards that are seen as reasonable and subject to change with future developments rather than just dismissing the problem as "too hard" and putting TOs in thr unenviable position of either DQing players arbitrarily or seeing their viewership torpedo due to stalling.
@@garth4712 The fact remains that in a game where a timeout is a legitimate way to win, any punishment of playing to that win-condition (bar instances of collusion) is unacceptable. Would the game be more interesting if Sonix wasn't allowed to play for the timeout (although the threat of the timeout is arguably more effective than the timeout itself)? Probably. Would it ruin his gameplan for many matchups? absolutely. Is this a good thing? No idea.
As a side note, does a player that sinks thousands of hours into a single character have the same tools at the character select screen as a one who plays 4 or 5 equally? I would say no.
@@TheRkyeet Disagree with your first sentence, again because sports provide lots of counterexamples. It's perfectly legitimate to win a fencing match by timeout, and its pretty much the only way to win a basketball game, but both sports still have strong "anti-stalling" rules. If you grant that such rules would make the game more interesting, who cares if they'd force a player like sonix (to use your example) to adapt and develop new strategies? How's it any different from the devs deciding one day that he has to adapt to Steve? Again, my issue is mainly that the smash scene (+ esports scene morr broadly) seems to have this weird hangup about introducing too many rules on top of the base game, even though the base game is really just a bunch of arbitrary developer decisions. Just look at how long it took to ban wobbling in melee, and how much cooler icies matches are now that icies players have been forced to adapt and don't just fish for wobbles all game.
@@garth4712 Real life sports analogies can go either way. In rugby and football, teams will extremely often stall for time for minutes at a time, even tens of minutes in the case of a well-organised rugby side. It's horrible to watch and play against, but is completely within the rules and can be overcome by good play. This is the same in Smash.
As for rules-bloat aversion, it no doubt is a problem, but an understandable one. I played Total War Warhammer 2 multiplayer, and the baseline game rules were so poor that literally the only way to get a fun multiplayer match was to go to the discord or play in a tournament that had official rules. The rules were complex, nuanced and hard to enforce. It's not a situation any fighting game community wants to be in, so keeping external rules as light as possible the experience is better for everyone (apart from Sonix's opponents)
It looks like the TO had it out for the Zelda player from the start. Yes, the Zelda player stalls on the respawn platform, and then moves to the edge of the stage. But while the Ice Climbers *also* refuse to engage, the TO is already saying stuff like "don't do that", and when the Ice Climbers do run in only for the Zelda player to land multiple hits and attempt an early kill, the TO is talking about how he had been ten seconds away from forcing the DQ. Then the TO talks about how the Zelda player killed 20 seconds on the clock, as if the Zelda player (who was down a stock) was somehow going to win the match by stalling. He even says he gets it because the opponent is Ice Climbers. It's also obvious that the Zelda player forcing the Ice Climbers to be more aggressive isn't a 100% path to victory, as the Zelda player takes the bad side of the next few exchanges. Then when the Zelda player again goes to an edge and the Ice Climbers again refuse to engage, the TO immediately DQs the Zelda player...
correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt you only want to stall when you're ahead ? isnt the idea to run down the clock with an advantage that would give you the win ? this seems more like defensive play over anything else, but i dont know smash too well competitively so take my opinion with a grain of salt
Yea for sure you are right. However, the zelda player was trying to force the opponent to come to him, as well as giving him time to think about how he could make this comeback. The first time the zelda player did it, it worked!! thats them thing that gets me...its not even like his gameplan wasnt working on top of the boring gameplay....
Just kinda crazy to dq someone for playing what is a boring but WHAT WORKED way to play.
@@CTEMmm Exactly! These garbage TOs don't understand the tactics these players utilize. They just go "X Zelda player being lame in my biased opinion?Banned!" Never going to this guy's tournaments.
@@CTEMmm you are right that the TO response was extreme, but let's not believe the Zelda player when they said they needed time to think. They knew exactly what they were doing by stalling/borderline griefing - make the game as unintresting as possible until the IC player decides to do anything at all to break up the silence. If the IC didn't react, the time probably would've gone out.
@@TK-ev I only approached because I thought the Zelda gave up. I only continued playing because I thought the game was going back to normal until I saw them just running away from me. Had they not been wobbling on ledge, I wouldn’t have approached at all.
@@TK-ev I really don't understand how taking time to think and camping are mutually exclusive. He was camping, hoping for the ic to come to him. While camping, he was thinking about how ic might approach him and what he can do to counteract that. Not sure what is illogical about this. Do you not think you not think during your sets?
It’s 10% blame on each player and 80% on the TO. It’s already unprofessional to interrupt an honest game in progress (as opposed to the Bayo stall), but it’s just ridiculous to force your interpretation mid-game and eliminate any chance of fair play. Let the game happen, then make a decision with complete information. Or, you know, read the rules over before you use emotion exclusively.
New Tournament Rules be like:
1. No Cheating
2. No Teabagging, only taunts used once
3. No Dash Dancing
4. No saying HAIYAA!!! Out loud
5. No saying “Melee is better”
6. No Sweaty Tryhards
7. No using Minecraft Steve cuz it’s too OP
8. No spamming Pk Fire or other attacks to lock your opponent
9. No spending time in the air
10. No using heavy characters cuz then people start to complain lol
11. No lewding at female characters
12. No screaming when winning a match, May cause fainting lol
13. No Salty people
14. No saying “Git Gud bruh”
And so on 😂😂😂
Wait.
AFTER he said he'd give him 10 seconds, he DQd him after 3 when he """"""stalled""""" again.
Yeah, no
This was completely unwarranted.
dude should not be a TO if he can't wait for a game to end.
edit: AND THEN HE RECORDS WHILE DRIVING
Are you mad? parking and record would be considered stalling.
@@Glockenspheal damn fair point, bro really cares about his rules
Been a TO for well over a year, please relax😭
@@kahamsha and you've been pulling shit like this constantly.
The fault lies with the TO. I don't play competitive smash or anything related, but the one who is stalling is losing the match with one stock to two. They could lose in two ways: Time runs out due to camping with a single stock or by percent damage done. I know there would be a third due to getting a KO since the Ice Climbers still have the lead...🥃
Playing devil’s advocate here, I think the TO was trying to keep the tournament games at the same pace and/or interesting to watch. That said although it’s boring to watch it’s not a banned strategy and the issue should be approached outside the game. I think this is a reaction to the Steve ban with TOs trying to experiment and being more bold, this was one of the mistakes that come from experimentation
Yout tournament has no legitimacy if you are going to ban people mid match for being "boring".
Well he can enjoy having nobody participate in his tournaments, because people don't like arbitrary stupid rules like that.
As a Marth main, I sometimes do this against players that immediately just spam projectiles like any of the Links, the PK bros, Samus, etc. I figure I'm providing as much interaction and gameplay as they are at that point. I make sure to have my back turned to them as well. But yeah it was a bad call from the TO.
I get hating fighting projectile spam but projectiles are an interaction, and characters like Link should be spamming projectiles at nearly all times. You have to play around that. Or you can just stand in the corner I guess, but that seems pretty silly to me.
@@DiamonDust Well yeah, you have to wait and look for an opening in a risky scenario. Playing defensively patient can get to your opponent. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with projectile spam if it weren't for the fact that those heavy projectile users can also kill very easily at melee range with safe, multi-hit aerials or smash attacks. Putting Marth's need for extreme precision aside, even Lucina or any other pure melee fighter would struggle hard against such gameplay. Even having one projectile is very advantageous in Ultimate. (I know, I can just not play Marth but, he's who I have fun with, so it's on me.)
Do you do that on the ledge, avoid fighting in melee range running away twice, then return to the ledge?
Especially as a character with multiple ranged and positioning attacks and viable melee attacks?
If he’s not having fun streaming and watching the Wifi Tourneys, the TO can just stop doing them. I get it, wifi can get annoying and boring if there isn’t much to watch and you’ll lose viewers. Just stop doing the tourneys. The DQ during the match wasn’t the way to go.
Zelda: On Edge
Guy in background: "Don't do that bro" "D-D-D-Don't do that bro" "D-D-Don't do that bro."
If every player stalled like this… no one would watch anymore, tournaments would lose viewership, smash ultimate would die.
That being said… should’ve let it run till time and then make a decision to DQ if the competitive integrity is challenged
It's absolutely ridiculous that an organizer, commentator or whatever would see that as an issue. Playing ult OR melee, I've had stare downs with opponents that long or longer. If both players were doing this irl, do you seriously think a TO worth their title would stomp in and tell them to quit the game?
The Bayo dittos at EVO will never not be annoying af. It amazes me that people defended it when it happened.
Idk. smash balancing was an absolute joke at that point in the game. It was kinda lame but that’s the nature of protesting
And it amazes me that people complained about it. It was their game to play. If you think it should have been played differently, then *you* get into EVO finals.
As someone who used to be a Sonic main, I’ve only ever timed someone out once, but I’ve always been putting on the pressure, not always winning, but I’ve been in my opponents face as much as I could, and to see Raf play him like that was just so boring, I woulda left after the face.
stalling while at a deficit is worse than stalling with a lead. If you're losing, the ownness is on YOU to approach if you don't want to lose. The player with the lead shouldn't have to compromise their advantage just because YOU don't want to take initiative. Stalling out the clock while losing is equivalent to destroying your families xbox because your older brother won't let you play - you still don't get what you want, and all you've effectively done is screw over everyone else out of spite.
The dude saying, "but he killed 20 seconds on the clock" like the Zelda was ahead. He's literally down a stock, there's no reason for him to "stall out the game." There have been other pro smash games where both players have sat on opposite sides of the stadium multiple times while tied just to collect themselves, and even that's not stalling. There's a time limit for a reason
All 3 of them are factored into this situation, I understand it is IC and you are just bound to get wrecked if they know how to play IC well, but the Zelda was just running around causing shenanigans so yea.
nah but you can't DQ mid match, secondly it's ultimate, this game is just campy online, this game is degenerate online since it's online sucks ass it emphasises patience and camping, it's the game's fault this even really happened. But also you can't DQ mid match, if it goes to time, as is said in every real ruleset, it can then be determined if something is wrong unless it's an obvious banned tech, but in those instances the person is forced to SD or lose the match. This just seems like a case of someone losing, playing defensive in an environment that encourages it and then being DQ'd before the match even ended
almost as if she's a zoner and she's meant to be played at range, lol. What the fuck is zelda gonna do against two icies, especially when sopo is still kind of a monster unlike in melee?
@@pyrusvincent1029 She wasn't using ranged attacks when zoning and when being chased on ground didn't punish the person chasing. She wasn't zoning she was purely stalling at points.
The thing I don’t get is why they called them out for stalling like it’s a winning tactic here to wait out the timer to 0. Zelda is down a stock, if that timer hits 0 they lose. Even if they both sat and waited the 2 minutes they lose. It’s not like Jigglypuff pound stalling where they’re likely up a stock or percent and would win due to time, that and the fact that being at the edge of the stage isn’t even safe to begin with.
I know staling *can* be bad, but here… is 2 minutes of our life really that precious that we can’t wait 30 seconds?
To be honest this situation is closer to Michael vs Bananas where neither player wants to approach
There is a point that's made. "The timer is there for a reason". Exactly. That's why we have a timer so that if you do really want to stall it's on you the timer will run out
The TO just had some syndrome and couldn't be patient and watch the game being played out. Sounds like one of those people who just enjoys fighting but not strategy. Hyushi is a boss!!!
Unnecessary stall needs to be defined well beforehand, and a deadline for something considered stalling should be put into place if you care to prevent such behaviour in the first place, for important tournaments for example (even for necessary stall, we don't need 99% waiting games for either players or viewers).
In this case, it can be defined as stalling, but such that was necessary to win or have a chance left and it was not long enough to be a relevant case. I would argue or think that up to a total of half the total timer could be used to "stall" necessarily without being toxic for the game (if necessary), and it can be judged afterwards wether stall was unnecessary/toxic... or even worse, just messing around.
I am no part of the Smash Community, but find this issue intriguing, so I would be interested to know wether there are rules in place to prevent this kind of issue, other than TO's subjective decision making on the spot (things that help make or explain such decisions) :)
Both people are not approaching and Zelda is one stock down. If anyone would be accused of stalling it would be the climbers??
The one down has to aprouch this isnt the reversed world shaking my head
I think it's the "Initiator" That could've been DQ here, since Zelda's despite if it's a tactic, Zelda is clearly losing hence it looks like they are stalling because they are Losing, though IC should be at least get a penalty because they don't do anything either
@@Inksploded , dude, stop making this about smash. In any fighting game, both players have to approach or attack by camping. If they don't, it's called stalling and both players are at fault. Right here both players decided to stall out for obvious reasons.
The one down ran away and didn't approach while the one up approached and gave up because they were winning already. This isn't your world where people play by your rules shaking my head.
@@no_less03 but the context is literally about smash, so what is the problem about making this about smash. Because I had the lead, I wouldn’t be at fault because time is on my side. If anyone, it’d be the Zelda for doing nothing in a losing situation
I love how the Smash fanbase is arguing if the Zelda player should have been DQ’d or not while the entirety of the FGC is saying that the TO is dumb for disqualifying that player, which I agree on.
These people who are pro-DQ would cry themselves to sleep if they fought Justin Wong I’m not gonna lie
Hbox taking the time to make this a teaching moment instead of using clout to bash him is something there should be more of.
Streamer is in the wrong. He’s more worried about the spectator sport of the game. Ice Climbers could’ve been throwing icicles that whole time.
I stand by that I think the Zelda was just trying to be unfun and anti-competitive. If you're gonna be intentionally lame and attempt to stall, I think it's up to the TO's discretion.
In rainbow we call this a tactical timeout lol. If you lose 4 guys at the start of the round your 5th can either go for the clutch, or use the remaining time to talk strategy and kill momentum. Completely in the rules of comp play.
Hbox farming people from my region for content
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Good. I feel bad you regional players. You guys need some TOs with integrity.
@@Spyder-Marth one mistake and I don’t integrity? Come on bro you don’t even know me
@@kahamsha then explain why the fuck you're exclusively favoring people in your group. This is getting pathetic dude. Ban the icies player as well or unban the Zelda player and give him some cash for the shit you pulled. Show some integrity.
@@kahamsha I mean yea, took away their chance to come back solely because you found it boring
If he's gonna DQ the Zelda for that, I'd like to see what happens when someone plays sonic in his tourney