Infinites(A.K.A. low-risk high-reward combos) should be limited

Most of those points have been said, but Arcansi I want you to look at one important thing.

Although he didn't say this, I am going to use his logic and apply it to this rule. If ICs cg wins the game then that is what is more skillful. That should be the end of the debate tbh.

Strong Bad said:

by trying to limit or ban these, you start going into the territory of "Play to win, but not too much!" which is stupid and I shouldn't have to explain why. your attitude toward infinites and your attempts to get them banned will only hurt you in the long term in improving as a player, as such a mentality is harmful to the play to win mantra that is one of the main bases of improvement and metagame development.

deal with the bull**** in your game & stop whining. if you're too scrubby to deal w/ this game's bull**** & improve yourself as a player without trying to pull this crap and potentially harm the game & other community's views on the Smash community as a whole (like URC did) then just stop playing.

Click to expand...

This is a good point

Arcansi, after you've established every possible rule you can think of, and made match-ups as close to what you think is even as possible, and then you find that some players still think they're at a disadvantage because now Ganon can spam warlock punch since you've forbidden dodging it to try and balance him, are you going to now limit warlock punch to using it only once every 5 seconds? Now what if Ganon players think they're at a disadvantage now because of some new tactic from their opponent?
^ example of the kind of ridiculous rules you're going to have to try to implement to balance the game, which ultimately won't help balance at all.

You're just going to keep limiting tactics until no competitive depth is left.
You can't determine what's an even match-up, you can't determine what adds depth and what doesn't, and the competitive community certainly won't play your version of the game with >9000 specific rules for each match-up.

aisight said:

Items were turned off in Melee because people didn't like it, and it was eventually accepted everywhere because it really sucks when you can't do anything about an explosive capsule/crate/barrel spawning on top of your lasting attack.

They were turned off in Brawl because most tournament players still don't like playing with them.

Yeah, items is a case of being turned off due to majority preference on rules.

The "Ice Climbers can't use projectiles against Ganondorf" thing is sounding dangerously close to making a rule out of "I will beat you with one arm tied behind my back".

Click to expand...

Items are still banworthy in Brawl if you feel their randomness crosses the competitive line.

This argument cannot be made for Melee, though, where they actually have a few set spawn points.

Alphicans said:

Responses in bold.

Click to expand...

This means i have to go through my own quote to get my responses. Eh, is ok I guess.

Alphicans said:

Most of those points have been said, but Arcansi I want you to look at one important thing.

Click to expand...

Ok.

Alphicans said:

Although he didn't say this, I am going to use his logic and apply it to this rule. If ICs cg wins the game then that is what is more skillful. That should be the end of the debate tbh.

Click to expand...

This is also something I should be putting in my response to SB, but wouldn't this apply to every rule ever? (idc, wall infinites, punching your opponent in the face.)

And if so, why am I not seeing him dispute them?

Strong Bad said:

this thread is bad and you should feel bad for making it.
this is just like the MK ban bull**** except your opinion is in the minority (thank ****)

Click to expand...

Your hate is not appreciated.

Strong Bad said:

you do not get to define what skill is in this game. no one does. play to win, objectively, decides what skill is. not you, not my mother, not Mew2King, not the Unity Ruleset Committee, regardless of whatever arbitrary and subjective idea of what "skill" is to you.

Click to expand...

1. Playing to win?

2. Unfortunately, the URC decides what wins tournaments, and if this is considered being skillfull, then they do.

Strong Bad said:

if mashing C-stick forward with Zelda is more effective than pressing 800 buttons to do something cool with Zero Suit Samus, then it's more skillful. you also don't get to try to balance the game surgically with rules like this, because then you'd arbitrarily be justified in banning all sorts of tactics and perhaps even moves to try to make the game "balanced" or "more fun" and then you aren't even playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl anymore, you're playing your own bull**** version that you're too much of a ***** to make an actual hack for like Balanced Brawl did.

Click to expand...

This...seems like slippery slope fallacy. Just because I could does not mean I will, and you can't logically say I will based on the fact that I could or would be justified in doing so.

Strong Bad said:

even if your surgical rules make the game more balanced or in your opinion more "fun," (that, need I repeat 800 times, is subjective and you shouldn't try to force it on others) that is not valid justification for making them standard for tournament play, as as I have said earlier, you are no longer playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl, you're playing your own version without really having the guts to do so, because your hack would be even less popular than your opinion, no doubt.

Click to expand...

We never were playing super smash bros. brawl. Do you know what happens in Super Smash Bros Brawl when MK uses the IDC, people plank, the timer hits 0, or someone wall infinites over 300%? Certainly not what happens in tournaments for our game.

Strong Bad said:

by trying to limit or ban these, you start going into the territory of "Play to win, but not too much!" which is stupid and I shouldn't have to explain why. your attitude toward infinites and your attempts to get them banned will only hurt you in the long term in improving as a player, as such a mentality is harmful to the play to win mantra that is one of the main bases of improvement and metagame development.

Click to expand...

I never crossed that line. Your still viewing the option that would be removed as an option, while I see it as an illegal action.

Again, look at IDC and such.

Strong Bad said:

deal with the bull**** in your game & stop whining. if you're too scrubby to deal w/ this game's bull**** & improve yourself as a player without trying to pull this crap and potentially harm the game & other community's views on the Smash community as a whole (like URC did) then just stop playing.

Click to expand...

Other communities can view our game how they want. The rest I have no response to because it's all idiocy.

Ghostbone said:

This is a good point

Arcansi, after you've established every possible rule you can think of, and made match-ups as close to what you think is even as possible, and then you find that some players still think they're at a disadvantage because now Ganon can spam warlock punch since you've forbidden dodging it to try and balance him, are you going to now limit warlock punch to using it only once every 5 seconds? Now what if Ganon players think they're at a disadvantage now because of some new tactic from their opponent?
^ example of the kind of ridiculous rules you're going to have to try to implement to balance the game, which ultimately won't help balance at all.

Click to expand...

Why did you assume how far I would go in balancing the game without asking me first?

Because in reality I would never go that far.

I understand how the community would react to any attempt at true balance in this game. I only seek to remove things that really screw over matchups.

Ghostbone said:

You're just going to keep limiting tactics until no competitive depth is left.
You can't determine what's an even match-up, you can't determine what adds depth and what doesn't, and the competitive community certainly won't play your version of the game with >9000 specific rules for each match-up.

Click to expand...

You don't know me or my goals and I would appreciate it if you would not assume such things, please.

Grim Tuesday said:

Items are still banworthy in Brawl if you feel their randomness crosses the competitive line.

This argument cannot be made for Melee, though, where they actually have a few set spawn points.

Click to expand...

Items are not one unit, each item is its own individually. If only they were approached like this from the start.

Arcansi said:

This is also something I should be putting in my response to SB, but wouldn't this apply to every rule ever? (idc, wall infinites, punching your opponent in the face.)

And if so, why am I not seeing him dispute them?

Click to expand...

As in you could use my logic and say "wall infinites shouldn't be limited because if you get them it means you are more skilled than your opponent," and also "if MK gets a lead and idc for 7-8 minutes it shouldn't be limited because it means he's more skilled than the other player."

Punching your opponent in the face isn't really a test of skill in the game, so I don't see how that is really applicable...

Stages with permanent walls are banned, so I actually do think wall infinites should go on for however long is allowed.

IDC is a very interesting point. On one hand I could say to you yes IDC should be legal because it means he's more skilled. And part of me truly wants to say this. However, MK is banned and I support the ban, so I actually do not really have to defend this point. If I were to defend it I'd say that in the scenario of MK getting the first hit and IDCing the rest of the time, we're testing who is the better player with a very small data set. Two alternatives would be this:

ban it completely because it limits testing too much

OR

Make sets much longer

Banning it saves a lot more time potentially, which is a critical part of making a ruleset. I'd apply this logic to infinites aswell.

Alphicans said:

Banning it saves a lot more time potentially, which is a critical part of making a ruleset. I'd apply this logic to infinites aswell.

Click to expand...

So what your saying is, infinites should be banned?

LOL.

Sorry that was unclear. I'd use similar logic and apply it to infinites.

Infinites have a similar consequence of IDC; you can get the grab and essentially win from there. Both lead to degenerative gameplay. However unlike the IDC, infinites are easily limited to taking a stock only. At this point it is no longer degenerative gameplay and will continue to test who is the better player.

It's not quite the same as what you are suggesting because you want to not only limit it to an arbitrary number (which can be quite hypocritical when dealing with other rules), but also on a match-up to match-up basis, which is going by a huge double standard. You want to limit the cg even further to assess who is the better player more efficiently, but it's very unclear how it settles that. As I have stated you cannot claim the ganon losing is not the lesser player vs the ICs.

Alphicans said:

LOL.

Sorry that was unclear. I'd use similar logic and apply it to infinites.

Click to expand...

Ok

Alphicans said:

Infinites have a similar consequence of IDC; you can get the grab and essentially win from there. Both lead to degenerative gameplay. However unlike the IDC, infinites are easily limited to taking a stock only. At this point it is no longer degenerative gameplay and will continue to test who is the better player.

Click to expand...

With a very large bias on one side. And potential for the bias to become much larger.

Alphicans said:

It's not quite the same as what you are suggesting because you want to not only limit it to an arbitrary number (which can be quite hypocritical when dealing with other rules), but also on a match-up to match-up basis, which is going by a huge double standard. You want to limit the cg even further to assess who is the better player more efficiently, but it's very unclear how it settles that. As I have stated you cannot claim the ganon losing is not the lesser player vs the ICs.

Click to expand...

How is it unclear? It settles that because it makes it so getting a grab is not such a large reward, and is more balanced relative to its risk. This makes the match test skill more efficently.

No, but I can claim it is possible he was the better player and lost because of an overpowered tactic.

It is true that the matchup would be more balanced with the tactic limited, as the tactic is quite obviously a large factor in the IC's game, and it is apparent that even without it guaranteeing a stock the matchup would still be in the IC's favour, if not maybe slightly favorable for ganon.

Either way this is an improvement.
(Overpowered meaning largely broken due to the risk/reward and execution skill necessary, (e.g. a 1 frame 15 input repeatable combo is not broken due to having 1 frame of execution.))

"No, but I can claim it is possible he was the better player and lost because of an overpowered tactic."

This is something I simply cannot agree with. If the ganon lost he was the lesser player. There are many characters to pick that do fine vs ICs, he could use them. That's just the nature of the game.

Alphicans said:

This is something I simply cannot agree with. If the ganon lost he was the lesser player. There are many characters to pick that do fine vs ICs, he could use them. That's just the nature of the game.

Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

Arcansi, character selection is a skill, whether you like it or not, and trying to get rid of that skill in favour of other skills you think are more important is scrubby.
We, the competitive community, are playing as much of Brawl that's competitively sound as we can, sure there are a couple of rules that aren't 100% competitive, but that doesn't justify further modifying the ruleset, like you're suggesting, to make it less competitive. (and yes, limiting infinites is definitely uncompetitive)

Arcansi said:

Items are not one unit, each item is its own individually.

Click to expand...

And the spawning mechanics of every item is equally random, which is what I was talking about, so items are one unit in this situation.

Ghostbone said:

Pretty much this.

Arcansi, character selection is a skill, whether you like it or not, and trying to get rid of that skill in favour of other skills you think are more important is scrubby.
We, the competitive community, are playing as much of Brawl that's competitively sound as we can, sure there are a couple of rules that aren't 100% competitive, but that doesn't justify further modifying the ruleset, like you're suggesting, to make it less competitive. (and yes, limiting infinites is definitely uncompetitive)

Click to expand...

If character selection is a skill, why was MK banned? For being too skilled? That would seem to be the most scrubby option to me.

Also, you need to prove limiting infinites is uncompetitive.

Alphicans said:

This is something I simply cannot agree with. If the ganon lost he was the lesser player. There are many characters to pick that do fine vs ICs, he could use them. That's just the nature of the game.

Click to expand...

The thing is, your defining skill with "Anything that allows you to win more under our ruleset."

This makes no sense in the context of our argument and confused me for a while.

Skill is not defined by that, so your argument is false.

MK was banned because he took too many rules to avoid degnerative gameplay. He could stall out every character, which could force tournaments to run too long.

I don't get your response to my quote at all. The context of our argument is this:

Which ruleset is the most reasonable. Perhaps a better wording is, "which ruleset proves who the better player is with the least amount of alterations."

Why is this the standard you may ask? Because if alterations are not needed to determine who the better player is, then it's an empty rule. The ruleset currently already determines who the better player is, because ganon could go ICs, diddy, ROB, marth, tlink, wario etc. to handle ICs properly. To add rules that superficially balance the ICs vs ganon match-up is an unnecessary step because we're already testing who the better player is.

Guess I'll chime in here before I sneak off again ^^
Starting with decision theory- which makes the assumption that a decision should be made on the basis of whether the proposed benefits over the costs of an option have value over alternatives. And costs can be anything from how it effects gameplay mechanics to community feelings, etc.... All this means is that we should ban infinites if the benefit of doing so outweighs the benefit of leaving them in. I'm saying this now before people start off on how its not overcentralizing, or what other fighters do, or whatever Sakurai's intent was etc... which do not even fit this basic criteria. You may notice that this ends up being a subjective interpretation of its value, but in fact any criteria towards what should or shouldn't be allowed in a game is always by nature subjective, as it makes assumptions on what is the value of playing the game and how much is too much. I will however say that the decision should be based on the community's subjective interpretation and not an individuals.

But in my opinion infinites are not a competitive part of gameplay. DDDs infinites are the clearest case for this, but ICs and other infinites are debatable too. And what I mean by that is, in general, the heart of competitive play should revolve around a comparison of skill between players to find out who is better. And the exploitation of this tactic places matchup advantage way too much in the hands of one player for certain matchups (and for other matchups has no effect)... this is done without reasonable counter if the cger decides to exploit the tactic- its true there are small things that you can do to limit damage but no way those add up to really revert the matchup advantage gained by it. Even when it doesn't hurt this comparison it destroys complexity in gameplay (ddd tries to grab you the whole match so they can do a simple repeating button pattern without counterattack until your health is gone, and in order to defend most of the time players end up having to resort to hype killing gampelay as well- planking, running away and spamming the whole fight, etc..). Now its true that many of the characters going against DDDs infinite would be disadvantaged anyways, but its pretty clear that the comparison of skill is lessened moreso with it being there, since it hurts the matchup ratios more historically, and thus its biggest effect is that it allows even more relatively unskilled DDDs to advance past their opponents and be represented more in the tournament.

I'm asking you to remove this tactic under these criteria:
- DDDs infinites only have a negative effect on matchup ratios and therefore skill comparison (in the matchups it can be utilized it takes a more even matchup and makes it worse and in matchups where it isn't used its removal has no effect).
- The tactic is a hype killer in games, it emphasizes repeating grabs for the proponent of the cg and planking/spamming/time delay in the opponent.
-A ban is easily implemented. Its generally easy to make a ruleset definition that either places a cg limit before breaking or requiring a dash between grabs for DDD. The difficulty of implementing said ban has been a topic of debate for some time, with one glaring weakness: its already been banned in like a million tournaments without real issue.

The costs of such a decision I would say are generally community feelings about having to implement the ruleset change, and questions that arise towards other cgs in competitive play. I, however, believe that the benefit gained from this from a competitive standpoint outweigh the costs. I really see infinites a lot on the lines of planking: its a generally easy to do tactic that you can't really effectively counter as an opponent although you do have some options to limit it, it hurts matchup ratios on average and gameplay hype, and is fairly easy to limit. With one major exception (aside from the obvious mechanical differences)- and that being how the community responds to these issues. You see for infinites there is a sort of prevailing mentality that they are ok but for planking the community census is that they are bad- even though they hurt gameplay for many of the same reasons. You see if Rich Brown goes to an out of state tournament and gets screwed bc someone planks and unfairly wins its a big deal. But if a DK goes to an out of state tournament and gets far and then infinited and is forced to lose, the only really response is "lolol that's what you get for picking that character." Unfortunately, because of this I don't see them being banned anytime soon :/

Hive said:

But in my opinion infinites are not a competitive part of gameplay.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion though...

DDDs infinites are the clearest case for this

Click to expand...

You mean the one he has against 3 characters? Or the one that requires ridiculous tech skill?

and what I mean by that is, in general, the heart of competitive play should revolve around a comparison of skill between players to find out who is better. And the exploitation of this tactic places matchup advantage way too much in the hands of one player for certain matchups (and for other matchups has no effect)... this is done without reasonable counter if the cger decides to exploit the tactic- its true there are small things that you can do to limit damage but no way those add up to really revert the matchup advantage gained by it.

Click to expand...

I can't understand how using an infinite doesn't take skill. I could point to a myriad of other 'techniques' that ruin match-ups. e.g. Snake's up-tilt against Jigglypuff, should probably limit that if you're limiting infinites. Also why can't the other player just pick a character that you know, doesn't get infinited? They could pick Falco against D3, which might force the D3 to learn other characters. If anything that increases the skill required of the players, rather than decreasing it.

Even when it doesn't hurt this comparison it destroys complexity in gameplay (ddd tries to grab you the whole match so they can do a simple repeating button pattern without counterattack until your health is gone

Click to expand...

Don't pick DK, Bowser or D3(lol)

and in order to defend most of the time players end up having to resort to hype killing gampelay as well- planking, running away and spamming the whole fight, etc..).

Click to expand...

Only if they're too stubborn to switch to a character that can put up a fight. (I'd also disagree that D3 vs DK matches aren't hype, whenever they've occured in my area lots of people watch, even if the DK is being ***** xD.

Now its true that many of the characters going against DDDs infinite would be disadvantaged anyways, but its pretty clear that the comparison of skill is lessened moreso with it being there, since it hurts the matchup ratios more historically, and thus its biggest effect is that it allows even more relatively unskilled DDDs to advance past their opponents and be represented more in the tournament.

Click to expand...

Comparison of skill? Idk what skill you're talking about but generally most of us here want to play SSBB, not you're version of the game.

I'm asking you to remove this tactic under these criteria:
- DDDs infinites only have a negative effect on matchup ratios and therefore skill comparison (in the matchups it can be utilized it takes a more even matchup and makes it worse and in matchups where it isn't used its removal has no effect).
- The tactic is a hype killer in games, it emphasizes repeating grabs for the proponent of the cg and planking/spamming/time delay in the opponent.
-A ban is easily implemented. Its generally easy to make a ruleset definition that either places a cg limit before breaking or requiring a dash between grabs for DDD. The difficulty of implementing said ban has been a topic of debate for some time, with one glaring weakness: its already been banned in like a million tournaments without real issue.

Click to expand...

You realise I could take any technique/move and replace DDD's infinites in the first part right? Falco's lasers only have a negative effect on matchup ratios and therefore.....
As for the second point, every match-up emphasises different things, i don't see a problem with some match-ups (every single one with IC) emphasising grabs.
The ban isn't easily implemented, see Will vs vVvCheese (I think that was the game where they couldn't tell whether Cheese was short stepping or standing in place, and Will ended up being DQ'd for pausing.
Requires a dash between each grab?
Really I'm just not for a rule that would limit DDD's ability to chain-grab every character in the game depending on the stage.
Idk man, Snake doesn't deserve a buff against DDD.

The costs of such a decision I would say are generally community feelings about having to implement the ruleset change, and questions that arise towards other cgs in competitive play. I, however, believe that the benefit gained from this from a competitive standpoint outweigh the costs. I really see infinites a lot on the lines of planking: its a generally easy to do tactic that you can't really effectively counter as an opponent although you do have some options to limit it, it hurts matchup ratios on average and gameplay hype, and is fairly easy to limit. With one major exception (aside from the obvious mechanical differences)- and that being how the community responds to these issues. You see for infinites there is a sort of prevailing mentality that they are ok but for planking the community census is that they are bad- even though they hurt gameplay for many of the same reasons. You see if Rich Brown goes to an out of state tournament and gets screwed bc someone planks and unfairly wins its a big deal. But if a DK goes to an out of state tournament and gets far and then infinited and is forced to lose, the only really response is "lolol that's what you get for picking that character." Unfortunately, because of this I don't see them being banned anytime soon :/

Click to expand...

Banning infinites opens up the door to ban/limit a myriad of other tactics. It's really not a good idea to go down that road, when yes the DK can just secondary a character to deal with D3. That's what the DK main in my area is doing (picking up Falco as a secondary)
Because you know what? He didn't complain, didn't cry foul, didn't call it gay (much) he got better

Ghostbone said:

That's your opinion though...

Click to expand...

His post states that basically the whole thing is opinion, meant to be taken as fact. Did you understand the first paragraph?

Ghostbone said:

You mean the one he has against 3 characters? Or the one that requires ridiculous tech skill?

Click to expand...

Ridiculous? Ridiculous maybe in comparison to our game, but not ridiculous in comparison to human ability. It is not unexpected for each DDD main to know all the chaingrabs.

Ghostbone said:

I can't understand how using an infinite doesn't take skill. I could point to a myriad of other 'techniques' that ruin match-ups. e.g. Snake's up-tilt against Jigglypuff, should probably limit that if you're limiting infinites. Also why can't the other player just pick a character that you know, doesn't get infinited? They could pick Falco against D3, which might force the D3 to learn other characters. If anything that increases the skill required of the players, rather than decreasing it.

Click to expand...

Using an infinite takes a substantial amount less skill then gaining the damage through most any other means does.

1. A move is not a technique.

2. It does not ruin the matchup nearly to the extent that infinites ruin matchups. I think you're misunderstanding what he is saying here.

Ghostbone said:

Don't pick DK, Bowser or D3(lol)
Only if they're too stubborn to switch to a character that can put up a fight.

Click to expand...

Character selection is NOT a skill we wish to test in this game? Disagree, and believe your point is more logical then mine? Then go get MK unbanned. Until such a thing happens, unfortunately, your point holds no ground against mine.

Ghostbone said:

Comparison of skill? Idk what skill you're talking about but generally most of us here want to play SSBB, not you're version of the game.

Click to expand...

1. Your not playing SSBB.

2. If his version of the game is undeniably better for competition, truely competitive players would want to play it.

Ghostbone said:

You realise I could take any technique/move and replace DDD's infinites in the first part right? Falco's lasers only have a negative effect on matchup ratios and therefore.....

Click to expand...

No, they don't. Moves may not seem to have any downsides, but sometimes the downside is that they're there.

For Example, in the Falco vs Pit matchup I don't get many lazers thrown at me, as it is hella easy to reflect those passively and outcamp him. The move would much better be replaced with something else, in that matchup.

Ghostbone said:

As for the second point, every match-up emphasises different things, i don't see a problem with some match-ups (every single one with IC) emphasising grabs.

Click to expand...

I'm ok with some matchups emphasizing other things also. What I'm not ok with is a single move (of about 30 or more on a character?) being pretty much that characters whole strategy.

That, my friends, is called overcentralization, something we wish to remove from this game. (see: MK being banned)

Ghostbone said:

The ban isn't easily implemented, see Will vs vVvCheese (I think that was the game where they couldn't tell whether Cheese was short stepping or standing in place, and Will ended up being DQ'd for pausing.
Requires a dash between each grab?
Really I'm just not for a rule that would limit DDD's ability to chain-grab every character in the game depending on the stage.
Idk man, Snake doesn't deserve a buff against DDD.

Click to expand...

There being no rule in place limits his ability to chaingrab based on the stage.

If the rule is in fact a positive change overall, and by a good margin (which it is). Then some small sacrifices will have to be made. These are acceptable because all it does in increase diversity (DDD plays on more stages now.)

Snake getting a buff vs DDD is irrelevant.

Ghostbone said:

Banning infinites opens up the door to ban/limit a myriad of other tactics. It's really not a good idea to go down that road, when yes the DK can just secondary a character to deal with D3. That's what the DK main in my area is doing (picking up Falco as a secondary)
Because you know what? He didn't complain, didn't cry foul, didn't call it gay (much) he got better

Click to expand...

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

Taken from Wikipedia.

A fallacy is illogical, and is not an argument. Please don't commit the same one three times.

Strong Bad said:

mk was banned because the community is scrubby, don't bring it up here.

Click to expand...

This point is not logic and holds no weight in an argument, Strong Bad.

It is also your opinion, another reason for the above sentence to be true.

Can you explain how that ties into an opinion without logical proof behind it?

Strong Bad said:

Yes. Fun is subjective. Some people enjoy playing Call of Duty: Black Ops, while I do not. You cannot, therefore, objectively state that any surgical change you make to a game via ruleset makes the game "more fun".
Balance cannot be quantified objectively. You can't quantify priority, options, counters, etc. The fact that there is always disagreement on match-up ratios even among high level players is proof of this. So, it would be very hard to say that the game would be "more balanced" if a certain surgical rule were added, although it'd certainly be easy to say that the character who is limited is worse.

Click to expand...

Fun is measurable due to the ways people experience it, espicially in certain test groups designed for this (e.g. a bunch of people who all play black ops where the test is to see what is fun or not in black ops, not the game itself.)

I can conclude that it makes it more fun based on the community, human nature, and the fact that outliers are not considered to be a largely noted fact when surveys are done.

The fact that there is disagreement means that the ratio may not be perfect. However, there are ones where there is no disagreement a certain way (e.g. nobody is saying ICs vs Ganon is in Ganons's favour seriously.)

It is very easy to say the game would be more balanced with a change as long as the community as a whole knows and accepts certain conditions, relative to the change suggested. (So for this situation, those conditions are 1. Many matchups with infinites are already bad for the character being infinited without them.

2. Infinites are not used as a 'crutch' mechanic for many/any characters. NOTE: This happens to ICs and is why I am against the full banning of their infinites.

3. The community isn't deadset on playing a pure version of the game (see: Actual Vbrawl.))

How can you conclude it's more fun for the community if they haven't used the rule? It's not like you're the first one to suggest this seriously.

Alphicans said:

How can you conclude it's more fun for the community if they haven't used the rule? It's not like you're the first one to suggest this seriously.

Click to expand...

I can conclude it's more fun in the matchups as it increases the amount of time players are spent playing and decreases the amount of time they get to sit and watch themselves be killed.

Note that I'm not including the amount of fun gained by watching yourself kill someone as that is 1. Fun gained at the cost of creating large amounts of anti-fun, which is bad, & 2. Loss of Hype.

I find it very fun being forced to dance around ICs. I am forced to use a different skill set vs ICs than any other character. It's fun.

Outliers are not considered when gleaming an overall statistic.

Try Again.

Clearly I am not an outlier because we haven't banned infinites. If people thought they were that unfun, they'd be banned.

Also, can you present said statistic? If you're going to claim I am an outlier you need proof.

I think limiting cg's would make the game more "balanced" in that there could be less death matchups, though I think it's also possible limiting a character's cg's could make them disadvantaged against a lot of other characters (i.e. IC's could start losing hard to other characters because of their limited cg)

Also, your rules seem rather arbitrary
I mean, people always debate MU's, so I don't see how it's within anyone's jurisdiction
to decide what low-risk high-reward is

I also still don't see how more more balance suddenly makes Brawl a better game
I mean, you already got a pretty good spread of contenders for tourney-viable characters and counters
Is it really necessary or worth it to implement such a rule?

I think current ruleset standard regarding this is
If it gives one character an overwhelming advantage on any character on any stage, it merits a ban (IDC being banned because it gives MK huge advantage against anyone)
Even with IC's or D3's CG's, there are only a few matchups where they actually get a free match
So other person still has some sort of fighting chance, in character selection at least

I would need confirmation on this though lol

Also, fun is a bad argument because, as stated before, it is entirely subjective
If you're noting people who complain about it, you should also note the people who have no problems with it
(and personally, I think IC's CG is one of the most awesome, most hilarious things to watch in this game. soooooo gooooooood)

Watch tournament matches. ICs getting the cg during high profile matches is so hype. It's an acquired taste I suppose, but I think most people have acquired it at this point.

^Pretty much
Watching matches where one player is dancing around the other player, where a mistake from either player can result in a massive punish (dead nana or loss of stock), where one player must have perfect tech skill under massive pressure, etc. is definitely hype.

Arcansi said:

Ridiculous? Ridiculous maybe in comparison to our game, but not ridiculous in comparison to human ability. It is not unexpected for each DDD main to know all the chaingrabs.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't know how hard it is.
Back, Down, Back, Forward + Grab in 10 frames. I don't know of any D3 main who's mastered it. (some can do it like, a few times out of 10, nothing consistent, but then you get worn out, because yes, it is that hard)
IC mains complain their infinite is hard, they've got nothing on D3's infinites.....

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

Click to expand...

It's not a fallacy in this case
Notice I never said "Banning infinites will lead to banning xyz" That is a fallacy, I have no proof of that.
What isn't a fallacy is saying "If we ban infinites, there's no reason not to go on and ban xyz, as the same argument applies for banning them, and the game is a lot worse off once we ban all this stuff"
lrn2argue

Using an infinite takes a substantial amount less skill then gaining the damage through most any other means does.

1. A move is not a technique.

2. It does not ruin the matchup nearly to the extent that infinites ruin matchups. I think you're misunderstanding what he is saying here.

Click to expand...

1. Define "Skill", normally skill is what enables you to win, just saying...
2. Yes it is
3. Snake's up-tilt turns the match-up from winnable (say +1.5 Snake? to easily +3, getting close to +4)

Well you see, Fun is...

what is fun?

*spongebob song*

Alphicans said:

Watch tournament matches. ICs getting the cg during high profile matches is so hype. It's an acquired taste I suppose, but I think most people have acquired it at this point.

Click to expand...

Okay, I can give you this. Aquired taste(/Preference) it is.

I concede this point.

Ghostbone said:

^Pretty much
Watching matches where one player is dancing around the other player, where a mistake from either player can result in a massive punish (dead nana or loss of stock), where one player must have perfect tech skill under massive pressure, etc. is definitely hype.

Click to expand...

See Above.

Ghostbone said:

You clearly don't know how hard it is.
Back, Down, Back, Forward + Grab in 10 frames. I don't know of any D3 main who's mastered it. (some can do it like, a few times out of 10, nothing consistent, but then you get worn out, because yes, it is that hard)
IC mains complain their infinite is hard, they've got nothing on D3's infinites.....

Click to expand...

1. Have the top level DDD mains mastered it? (If it's at all relevant in there area.)

2. Is it humanly masterable? I mean, we put in a lgl not based on human ability (see: actual games where both players understand what is happening) but based on what could happen, under optimal circumstances (see: DK planking with 1 frame unbufferable perfection.)

Ghostbone said:

It's not a fallacy in this case
Notice I never said "Banning infinites will lead to banning xyz" That is a fallacy, I have no proof of that.
What isn't a fallacy is saying "If we ban infinites, there's no reason not to go on and ban xyz, as the same argument applies for banning them, and the game is a lot worse off once we ban all this stuff"
lrn2argue

Click to expand...

Ok, I guess.

And now you have to actually prove your point, as xyz in an argument proves nothing.

I don't appreciate you teling me to lrn2argue, thanks.

Ghostbone said:

1. Define "Skill", normally skill is what enables you to win, just saying...
2. Yes it is
3. Snake's up-tilt turns the match-up from winnable (say +1.5 Snake? to easily +3, getting close to +4)

Click to expand...

1. Then why was MK banned? For being too skilled?

2a. A move is an option a character has that they can do by inputting a certain command within a certain set of characteristics. It has frame data, hit boxes and hurtboxes(sometimes), priority, etc.

2b. A technique is a playstyle. It has preferences, optimal situations, and matchups.

They are not the same thing.

3. Limiting a move is not the same as limiting a technique. Given the option to perfectly balance the game, I would do so.

HOWEVER, it is not an argument against balancing the game further that we should also do X, as there are differences in this and X, even if X would balance the game.

Alphicans said:

Clearly I am not an outlier because we haven't banned infinites. If people thought they were that unfun, they'd be banned.

Click to expand...

See my conceding of ths point. Note that you are an outlier to human nature.

Alphicans said:

Also, can you present said statistic? If you're going to claim I am an outlier you need proof.

Click to expand...

Human Nature. Note that I'm not arguing this point anymore, so ignore this.

Twinkles said:

I think limiting cg's would make the game more "balanced" in that there could be less death matchups, though I think it's also possible limiting a character's cg's could make them disadvantaged against a lot of other characters (i.e. IC's could start losing hard to other characters because of their limited cg)

Click to expand...

This is true, but stages do the same and they get banned and unbanned whenever it seems necessary.

Alphicans said:

Also, your rules seem rather arbitrary
I mean, people always debate MU's, so I don't see how it's within anyone's jurisdiction
to decide what low-risk high-reward is

Click to expand...

If it's debateable, it isn't

I can definitely tell you that grabbing ganon once as IC's and getting a stock is low-risk high-reward.

I can also definitely tell you that doing the same to Lucas is low-risk high-reward. (If your playing the matchup correctly, meaning not always going for the grab unless it's easy enough to get)

Alphicans said:

I also still don't see how more more balance suddenly makes Brawl a better game
I mean, you already got a pretty good spread of contenders for tourney-viable characters and counters
Is it really necessary or worth it to implement such a rule?

Click to expand...

Being balanced promotes skill instead of matchups, making our game test skill better. This is a basic factor of balance.

We have..maybe 8 characters tournament viable? How is this a good spread when that's under 1/4 of our cast?

Alphicans said:

I think current ruleset standard regarding this is
If it gives one character an overwhelming advantage on any character on any stage, it merits a ban (IDC being banned because it gives MK huge advantage against anyone)
Even with IC's or D3's CG's, there are only a few matchups where they actually get a free match
So other person still has some sort of fighting chance, in character selection at least

I would need confirmation on this though lol

Click to expand...

It's not. Else things like Yoshi on Wario would've been banned long ago (And the main reason this thread was made was things like this, see bottom.)

Alphicans said:

Also, fun is a bad argument because, as stated before, it is entirely subjective
If you're noting people who complain about it, you should also note the people who have no problems with it
(and personally, I think IC's CG is one of the most awesome, most hilarious things to watch in this game. soooooo gooooooood)

Click to expand...

Acquired Taste. Argument Conceded.

Kewkky said:

You cannot measure fun, period. If so, it would have a unit associated with it. "This game is fun, but my testing proves that we can add 5 more units of fun to the game if we do X thing", yeah that's never gonna happen. In the end, whatever 'measurement' you do to 'measure' fun is always up to subjective interpretation.

Click to expand...

1. as long as it's provable through certain known things (human nature) we can assume the relative worth of certain variables and measure fun relatively while being logically sound.

2. Argument Conceded.

Kewkky said:

Statistics by using groups, like your Black Ops example, is also flawed. There's a chance they may have picked a group full of people who like different things about Black Ops, and there's also a chance they may have picked a group of people who only like one thing about Black Ops. The conclusion of the study simply reflects the average of the control group. They may have also conducted the study in an area full of people who like to play 'Sabotage', when in the rest of the world the most popular game type is "'Team Deathmatch'. There's too many "If's" to say you can properly measure an unquantifiable and abstract concept such as fun by conducting field tests. In the end, the thing perceived as most fun is that which appeals to the majority.

Click to expand...

Couldn't this apply to any test ever, and isn't that why they do multiple tests over a large period of time with different subject groups?

Kewkky said:

There's also this: If 100,000 people enjoy this game and 200,000 people enjoy another game, then we can assume the 200,000 people's game is more fun. There's also something iffy about this measurement of fun; what if the 100,000 people are having the time of their life, and the 200,000 people are just finding the game mildly pleasant? Which game is more 'fun'

Click to expand...

Again, small niche things about tests that are covered in scientific testing, multiple times.

EDIT: It should be noted that I never REALLY wanted the IC's grab limited anyway. So what do you guys say to a limit of 3 regrabs on all non-IC's chaingrabs?

Arcansi said:

DK planking with 1 frame unbufferable perfection.)

Click to expand...

This is just blatantly wrong, frame data wise.

Grim Tuesday said:

This is just blatantly wrong, frame data wise.

Click to expand...

You missed his point

He didn't mean 1 frame invulnerability, he meant you can't buffer it (i think)

Arcansi said:

1. Have the top level DDD mains mastered it? (If it's at all relevant in there area.)

2. Is it humanly masterable? I mean, we put in a lgl not based on human ability (see: actual games where both players understand what is happening) but based on what could happen, under optimal circumstances (see: DK planking with 1 frame unbufferable perfection.)

Click to expand...

No they haven't.

Quite possibly no.

And now you have to actually prove your point, as xyz in an argument proves nothing.

Click to expand...

What differentiates banning infinites in certain match-ups to banning other factors in other match-ups?
Why is an infinite less of a legitimate way to win than spamming up-tilt?

I don't appreciate you teling me to lrn2argue, thanks.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just really dislike people quoting wikipedia like that :/

1. Then why was MK banned? For being too skilled?

Click to expand...

Yes, in a roundabout way. The skill becomes so centralised to the exclusion of other skills.
Infinites don't do this, we don't end up with IC vs IC or D3 vs D3 matches all the time. In fact, match-ups with infinites are a minority, why should we ban something that isn't hurting the game?

2a. A move is an option a character has that they can do by inputting a certain command within a certain set of characteristics. It has frame data, hit boxes and hurtboxes(sometimes), priority, etc.

Click to expand...

You're telling me a technique doesn't fit that as well?

2b. A technique is a playstyle. It has preferences, optimal situations, and matchups.

Click to expand...

Techniques aren't playstyles wtf. A playstyle is the way you read the opponent, how you apply your techniques, how aggressive/defensive you are, etc.
A technique is pretty much what you said a move was, something like SHDL is a technique. It's generally a precise series of inputs (some exceptions of course, but yea)
Moves might as well count as techniques, as they have 'optimal situations', they're more effective in some situations than others, etc. If not, at least the way you use a move is a technique, so there's nothing to differentiate.

3. Limiting a move is not the same as limiting a technique. Given the option to perfectly balance the game, I would do so.

Click to expand...

Yea it, kinda is.
Limiting a move will limit the way you can use it, limiting a technique will limit the way you can use the moves involved.

Edit: Bawww, accidental double post, meant to edit this into the previous one.

Ghostbone said:

You missed his point

He didn't mean 1 frame invulnerability, he meant you can't buffer it (i think)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did.

Ghostbone said:

No they haven't.

Quite possibly no.

Click to expand...

1. Why is banning something that never happens so it can't happen and be quite powerful when it does? Assuming we know it would be amazingly powerful, but due to the facts (DDD is quite good without it, so with it...) we can tell it pretty much would be.

2. There's also the fact that it can be mastered, as although it is hard to master, it will likely come to people in time if they really want to master it(most people probably just don't)

Ghostbone said:

What differentiates banning infinites in certain match-ups to banning other factors in other match-ups?
Why is an infinite less of a legitimate way to win than spamming up-tilt?

Click to expand...

1. The ease of use and effectiveness (the low-risk high-reward portion of it.)

2. The fact that uptilt won't take you from 0% - Dead, with no possible escape.

Ghostbone said:

Yes, in a roundabout way. The skill becomes so centralised to the exclusion of other skills.
Infinites don't do this, we don't end up with IC vs IC or D3 vs D3 matches all the time. In fact, match-ups with infinites are a minority, why should we ban something that isn't hurting the game?

Click to expand...

I don't even want to limit IC's infinites. Also, infinites become EXTREMELY centralized to the exclusion of other skills in matchups where they come into play. (read: Watching matches where one player is dancing around the other player, where a mistake from either player can result in a massive punish (dead nana or loss of stock.))

Ghostbone said:

You're telling me a technique doesn't fit that as well?

Click to expand...

A Square is always a Rectangle, but a Rectangle is not always a Square

Ghostbone said:

Techniques aren't playstyles wtf. A playstyle is the way you read the opponent, how you apply your techniques, how aggressive/defensive you are, etc.

Click to expand...

This is true.

Ghostbone said:

A technique is pretty much what you said a move was, something like SHDL is a technique. It's generally a precise series of inputs (some exceptions of course, but yea)
Moves might as well count as techniques, as they have 'optimal situations', they're more effective in some situations than others, etc. If not, at least the way you use a move is a technique, so there's nothing to differentiate.

Click to expand...

The critical differences are the properties of a move vs a technique, the fact that inputting a technique correctly takes technical skill, while inputting a move correctly takes almost none, the fact that techniques can be changed very easily and vary very much, whereas a move has at max 3 main variations (tilted up, straight, and tilted down for some moves like Luigi's Fsmash)

Also that a move can never take you from 0% to unavoidably dead from the middle of the stage on FD.

Ghostbone said:

Yea it, kinda is.
Limiting a move will limit the way you can use it, limiting a technique will limit the way you can use the moves involved.

Click to expand...

Kinda. Except the critical differences between a move and a technique make it different. And different is different enough.

Have problem with matchup-specific ****?
Get a second. As in, learn to play another character besides your main.

There is no good reason to cater to people who don't want to learn another character and just want to limit their opponent so their character is viable.