Ice Climbers Infinite Chaingrab in Brawl+

[1048576]

I don't think too many people are arguing to get rid of the Ice Climbers chainthrow game. Most seem to just simply want to get rid of it being so repetitive and actually have the potential of stalling out the match indefinitely.

If it was just removing the infinite and do nothing else to the chainthrows I would be completely against getting rid of it. But we have the ability to give them new kinds of chainthrows that would pretty much guarantee a death from a grab or at the very least do an extremely high amount of damage. The point I'm getting at is we can replace it with something that would have basically the same effect but would not have the stalling flaw that the current chainthrow infinites have. They would still have the same fear of being grabbed gameplay that they do now and probably some new scary desyncing traps to get the initial grab as well. I don't want to get rid of their current style of gameplay, I love the fear of getting grabbed play they force the opponent to play and I feel it is really part of their character. I just want to alter it to get rid of the slight design flaw.

Nana death upthrow. Doesn't infinite. Still fear of grabs. The only drawback is that it lowers the technical skill gap since any noob can at least get one Nana regrab.

 

[leafgreen386]

Nana killing with uthrow would create a greater multitude of situations in which the ICs can get a free kill, actually. It would also seem sort of sloppy, I think, when there are so many "cleaner" solutions, albeit much more complicated ones.

I fully support the concept of having a way to initiate a grab break if you are regrabbed within a very short time period of being thrown (basically only long enough to affect the IC alt throws). It would be a very specific input, like giza said, so you wouldn't be able to try to DI while doing it, meaning if you think your opponent will alt throw but instead they go for another chainthrow, then you can't get out of the alternative chainthrow. By the same token, if you expect the alternative chainthrow and try to DI, you won't get the grab escape. The grab escape should give the ICs frame advantage, but not give them a free regrab. It keeps the alt throws as part of the IC's game, but instead of an infinite, it creates a mixup situation.

Also, I knew this poll should've specifically stated in the poll options and the first post that it was only talking about the infinite - the alt throws. So many people in this thread under the impression that we want to completely remove chain throws from the ICs's game... which just isn't true.

And I've really gotta wonder why there's a "wait" option when the very people arguing for this change are not arguing it based on a balance perspective, but on the fundamental game design. Waiting doesn't really have any bearing on the argument...

 

[codefelp]

Keep it. Without it, ICs are terrible. Or at least far worse.

 

[GHNeko]

Keep it. Without it, ICs are terrible. Or at least far worse.

They'd be buffed in other places where they need it. So using the fact that they'll be worse as an arguement is pretty much null and void because they will be buffed to the point where they're balanced and extremely tourney viable without the infinite. :|

 

[VietGeek]

It seems to me the odd wording on the thread has confused a lot of people.

The poll says 'chaingrab', but does not specify which one. The thread title is "infinite chaingrab."

By definition the terms are used correctly, but the connotation of chaingrab is that it ends at a certain point, can be DI'd, is not infinite, this is to differentiate it from the term "infinite" in the Smash sense.

Therefore while many infinites in this game are done through grabs, the terms have split and mean different things for the most part.

So the poll should be reworded to specifically ask to remove/not remove the infinite (Alt. throws), and the title changed to just "Ice Climbers Infinite in Brawl+". The should avoid any further confusion.

At least I hope it should.

 

[cman]

I was talking to Sirlin and a few other people on his site for a while, and they all quickly agreed that keeping the infinite is not the right move. Reasons varied from bad game design to little depth to enabling a larger variety of options, etc, but all of them agreed that the infinite should go. Afterwards we got off on a large but interesting tangent... You could probably see the tail end of the conversation on the "talkinator" thing on sirlin's site if you scroll up.

 

[Ulevo]

I was talking to Sirlin and a few other people on his site for a while, and they all quickly agreed that keeping the infinite is not the right move. Reasons varied from bad game design to little depth to enabling a larger variety of options, etc, but all of them agreed that the infinite should go. Afterwards we got off on a large but interesting tangent... You could probably see the tail end of the conversation on the "talkinator" thing on sirlin's site if you scroll up.

No offense to Sirlin, as I respect him as a maker and professional competitive gamer, but he is not an expert on this subject in the least. He plays Smash with items on, and believes Mario Kart is a good game competitively, or so I am told. His opinion on competitive smash and its validity is questionable at best, and I wouldn't consider anyone intelligent to take his word on this with any serious concern.

 

[Vulcan55]

Yeah, really.
He made a series of Brawl tutorial videos (Because Nintendo paid him) and they were...ehh.
He looks at it way to simplistically and from too much of a Street Fighter Point of View.

I'm sure if Sirlin played Smash competitively, he would agree that items suck, but he doesn't, so he just agrees with what SRK says, and lord knows how anti-Smashboards they are.
/tangent

EDIT: What the hell, why is my name green?

 

[jokey665]

EDIT: What the hell, why is my name green?

I'm fairly certain it's an April Fool's thing.

 

[cman]

No offense to Sirlin, as I respect him as a maker and professional competitive gamer, but he is not an expert on this subject in the least. He plays Smash with items on, and believes Mario Kart is a good game competitively, or so I am told. His opinion on competitive smash and its validity is questionable at best, and I wouldn't consider anyone intelligent to take his word on this with any serious concern.

It's not a question that only applies to smash, though. Essentially, the question is: "Should an infinite that is not game breaking remain in a competative game when designing the game?"

It's a pretty universal question with respect to competative game design, which is a field where you acknowledged his ability/ideas.

 

[KarateF22]

faulty game design used by people can become competitively accepted. Perfect example: wavedashing. Chain grabs are the same way. Ice climbers other deficits cancel out any so called gamebreaking gains from their grab game. Not to mention ****-poor grab range.

 

[Ulevo]

It's not a question that only applies to smash, though. Essentially, the question is: "Should an infinite that is not game breaking remain in a competative game when designing the game?"

It's a pretty universal question with respect to competative game design, which is a field where you acknowledged his ability/ideas.

Ultimately if it does not fault the games balance or character design in any which way, and it only adds to the characters unique features for the sake pleasures, there isn't really a reason why a designer should remove it.

I really do not see this as a case of poor game design. I am not trying to credit Sakurai, but I do not see this unique feature as poor. People are trying to equate an "infinite" as bad design, and it isn't as black and white as that. That's all there is to it. It only becomes poor if the concept behind its design was bad, and thus consequently results in balance issues between specific characters or, in worse case scenario, a broken move that stagnates the game.

No one has given a reasonable arguement as to why an infinite that is not broken or distorts game balance is bad design.

Edit: And wavedashing was not faulty game design. The game has a set amount of friction given to a character, and when force is applied to move the character in a particular direction on the ground, they slide a certain distance. Air dodging allowed wavedashing to occur by propelling the character in to the ground to allow for the slide. Wavedashing itself was not a faulty designed technique, it was a combination of in game physics that was birthed by the application given to it by players. The designers were even aware of this feature, they simply didn't think it would be applied in the way it was.

You could argue the air dodge system was faulty game design, but that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[tommz]

It seems to me the odd wording on the thread has confused a lot of people.

The poll says 'chaingrab', but does not specify which one. The thread title is "infinite chaingrab."

By definition the terms are used correctly, but the connotation of chaingrab is that it ends at a certain point, can be DI'd, is not infinite, this is to differentiate it from the term "infinite" in the Smash sense.

Therefore while many infinites in this game are done through grabs, the terms have split and mean different things for the most part.

So the poll should be reworded to specifically ask to remove/not remove the infinite (Alt. throws), and the title changed to just "Ice Climbers Infinite in Brawl+". The should avoid any further confusion.

At least I hope it should.

agreed

"Weaken the grab without removing it - perhaps by making it escapable or harder to initiate "

say you made the grab "harder to initiate" but left it as a one grab = one stock infinite... wouldn't this just distort certain matchups?

I thought the question was should nana be allowed to grab or not?

 

[Asdioh]

The game shouldn't stop for the opponent when the grab is made and be based completely on tech skill of the IC player. There should still be prediction involved in chainthrowing even if it almost always leads to the ice climbers getting some kind of follow up. We should work to try and make Ice Climbers have more tools that would balance out their match ups a bit better too. But there grab chains still should be, by far, the scariest in the game.

Exactly.

Taking away the infinites would be a similar thing. As much as you might like to john about it, taking them away would be a radical change from vBrawl and alienate potential players; why should IC mainers EVER touch Brawl+ when they can't even play THEIR MAIN without changing their entire playstyle and learn a new metagame?

...

I would say that they need buffs outside the infinites, but the infinites belong in the game. They could be played without wobbling in Melee because the character was still good enough to make it without an infinite. But in Brawl they are a bad character without them. Taking it away would cripple them.

I'm pretty sure that an IC main that relies solely on chaingrabs would be a very poor player. As it is, good players know about the chaingrab, and thus they don't get grabbed, which is pretty easy to do for some characters. In this case, the Ice Climber should never win, but they can. I don't think they're THAT bad. IC do things other than grab all day.


But the point is, Brawl+ can change things. From what I understand, grabbing with ICs is now harder to do in Brawl+, correct? That would mean that ICs will rely less on their infinite since it is hard to get a grab. Therefore, I think the "infinite" aspect should be removed, but if they do get a grab, like Team Giza says, it should still be devastating. But not necessarily a loss of a stock via a boring, repetitive chaingrab.

And the ICs should also be buffed in other aspects in order to balance them.

Really, I think the current regular Brawl IC metagame relies less on infinites than you think. Or at least, it should, since their grab range sucks.

Again, I am of the opinion that an IC main that relies almost exclusively on infinites would not be a successful player.

aaaand I haven't voted yet.

 

[Team Giza]

People are trying to equate an "infinite" as bad design, and it isn't as black and white as that.

I agree, infinites are not bad design in all cases in game. Definitely not in all cases. But in smash bros? Yes they are broken (except for a few exceptions which some could argue aren't infinites in that context). And why is this? Because infinites never eventually lead to kills until you get to the player decides to kill him. This is broken. Unless you think its reasonable to allow the player to continue it to 999% and beyond just to stall out the clock. You can say that it is unreasonable for anyone to do that. But it is possible. Heck if I got in a situation were I got a grab at the beginning of the match, I would get keep doing the infinite until the timer was about to run out and then kill them last 5 seconds. I guess you think this is okay though since you do not consider the infinite broken. Unless you want to impose a stalling rule on it... oh wait, a rule installed to keep the tactic to be reasonable in the game? You know what that means about the tactic? It means its broken. Pure and simple.

 

[1048576]

I've suggested a fix for this. It's a bad argument.

As for buffing everything else and removing the chaingrabs, that's equivalent to homogenizing the roster, which ruins the fun aspect. Nobody likes MK dittos in vBrawl, and nobody would like nothing but de facto Mario dittos in Brawl+

 

[Deleted member]

Notice the amount of people that have never posted in the Smash Workshop, how many of those people do you think have played brawl+?
How many of those people do you think voted in this thread?

a rule installed to keep the tactic to be reasonable in the game? You know what that means about the tactic? It means its broken. Pure and simple.

Right, let's nerf Jiggz' ability to stall under the ledge...

 

[meepxzero]

I would love to see alternatives. IC matches are TERRIBLY boring to watch. But it is just too big of a mechanic that is essential to a character to change.

As a game mechanic it is certainly flawed. No doubt about it...
But it isn't competitively broken.

We have the ability to fix a flaw in the design of the game, but if this flaw doesn't affect the competitive play of the game why should it be removed?
B+ is made to be competitive, and as it sits, the infinites do not hurt this in any way. The fact that the IC's can be hard countered prove this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnufumKmGwQ&feature=channel_page

if you find that boring to watch then yah maybe they are boring. Just the majority of ic mains play a really boring style and dont realize they are rewarded for approaching.

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnufumKmGwQ&feature=channel_page

if you find that boring to watch then yah maybe they are boring. Just the majority of ic mains play a really boring style and dont realize they are rewarded for approaching.

wow. and you guys enjoy this?

you seriously want to stick to **** like this when we could make the ice climbers do anything from yoga teleport all over the stage to shoot za warudos from their hammers? WE CAN DO ANYTHING. But the fact that we will be alienating people from 8 minute long poke matches is the reason we aren't going to just get rid of it and give them something actually interesting? What kind of stupidity is this? THIS IS A GAME, PEOPLE.

honestly this entire debate is pretty much up to the ice climber players. you can either maintain this boring, drawn out play style, or we can attempt to give you guys something new. I still can't fathom as to why anyone would find this acceptable. Screw tournament viable. Screw the fact that it's "not broken". This is not fun to watch. Why would I go to a tourney to watch drivel like that? This is a video game. Tournament matches are abstract representations of two people competing against one another on some different plane of existence.. it's essentially a performance, a play, a stage for you to show your prowess.. and frankly you aren't selling any tickets to this one.

 

[meepxzero]

haha okay do watever u want to them. I probably wont ever use ic to watever changes u do. Falcon looks mad fun anywho >_>.

 

[GHNeko]

wow. and you guys enjoy this?

you seriously want to stick to **** like this when we could make the ice climbers do anything from yoga teleport all over the stage to shoot za warudos from their hammers? WE CAN DO ANYTHING. But the fact that we will be alienating people from 8 minute long poke matches is the reason we aren't going to just get rid of it and give them something actually interesting? What kind of stupidity is this? THIS IS A GAME, PEOPLE.

honestly this entire debate is pretty much up to the ice climber players. you can either maintain this boring, drawn out play style, or we can attempt to give you guys something new. I still can't fathom as to why anyone would find this acceptable. Screw tournament viable. Screw the fact that it's "not broken". This is not fun to watch. Why would I go to a tourney to watch drivel like that? This is a video game. Tournament matches are abstract representations of two people competing against one another on some different plane of existence.. it's essentially a performance, a play, a stage for you to show your prowess.. and frankly you aren't selling any tickets to this one.

I love you. <3

No homo.

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

I'd just like to say that this is not a matter of tourney results, character statistics or a matter of what's broken, this is purely a matter of principle. brawl+ was founded with the fact that we are a community working together towards a goal. and that goal was to remove ourselves from the clutches of nintendo's new direction towards making games more casual, nintendo's lack of playtesting, and nintedo's lack of attention towards it's true fanbase.

at first we didn't think this would go anywhere and that it was just some fun thing to do on the side. but the more people got involved, the more people we saw interested, the more we realized that the whole idea of brawl+ is more than just some hack of a game... it's a statement. WE the community aren't going to put up with nintendo's crap anymore. every additional member we saw coming into the project just strengthened the whole idea; we want this game to be FUN! and every new member posting in the FAQ would express their gratification towards the Brawl+ project because we actually made the game enjoyable to play... we aren't going to let things like tripping, chain grabs, wall infinites ruin what we really enjoy out of smash bros: fast paced, action packed, mind-****ing gameplay.

infinite 0-death chain grabs are the exact opposite of the whole idea behind the project. i don't care if it was allowed in melee. i don't care if it was allowed in vbrawl. i don't care if it's all the ice climbers have (since we can give them ANYTHING). i don't care if they can only do it once in a blue moon.. the whole idea behind brawl+ is that we are going to do whatever it takes to make this a fun, balanced game, no matter the matchup. the opinions expressed in this thread are extremely threatening to the project.. and i'm very distressed that it's such a close vote. ulevo's approach to this completely undermines the whole idea behind brawl+! what do you think will lose more potential players? the removal of an infinite.. or leaving it in after promising a fun, fast paced, revolutionary brawl?

 

[1048576]

It would be fun if it just didn't take so long to complete. It's already completely fair.

I can strawman too. Which do you think will bring in more brawlers, a decent IC's grab game or the entire cast playing exactly the same.

IC's have something that is both unique and balanced. I say preserve it.

 

[mofo_]

it should be weekend,but still kept.... its what makes the ice climbers unique~!

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnufumKmGwQ&feature=channel_page

this is your guy's idea of uniqueness?

 

[Jiangjunizzy]

i would take 39 captain falcons over that

 

[GHNeko]

It would be fun if it just didn't take so long to complete. It's already completely fair.

I can strawman too. Which do you think will bring in more brawlers, a decent IC's grab game or the entire cast playing exactly the same.

IC's have something that is both unique and balanced. I say preserve it.

Again, I'd like to bring this up.

IIRC,

Infinites != Grab Game;
 ICs == Grab Game + Desyncs;
 ICs != Infinites;
 return 0;

How does removing the IC's Infinite, while preserving their grab game and desync tactics homogenize ICs, when their main course is, you guessed it, Grab Game and Desyncs.

It doesn't. If the infinite has to go, okay. Fine, but their grab game and desyncs should be preserved as those are what make up the flavor of ICs. Not infinites.

Spoiler

Yes. I just used code in that post to make a point. Sue me.

 

[matt4300]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnufumKmGwQ&feature=channel_page

this is your guy's idea of uniqueness?

@o@ wow that actually makes me want to learn IC. They look so... different. The desyncs, CGs, and haveing to look out for nana look like a blast to play. I have always hated playing them because I try and play them like everyone eles on the roster, but from that vid it looks like they play very differntly. Oh and I have already voted so I didnet think I needed to say anything constructive since I know nothing about the ICs.

*gone to IC boards*

 

[xDD-Master]

New ideas o_o

- remove Infinits
+ increase grab range
+ decrease d-throw knockback (Dthrow CG would be easier and longer)
+ increase up-throw knockback
+ make nana invicible (I mean she cant get hit xd So she wouldnt die that easy anymore (only if you mess up off-stage)... i dont know if this is possible but would be rly cool x)


what do you think ? (is the last one to broken xD ???)

 

[Ulevo]

Jiang, your wrong about this. Simply put.

You're going based on the assumption that what you saw in the video is what is going to be replicated in Brawl Plus. With the mechanical changes, with the different physics, with the faster game play and significantly weaker shields, with combos and new tactics... This isn't going to be happening anymore. I've already outlined this. The entire reason why that match was so boring is because Marth can't approach the Ice Climbers because if he hits their shield when he miss spaces or lands too close with an aerial afterwards, he's going to get grabbed immediately.

This doesn't happen in Brawl Plus.

Stop making illusionary arguments about what the principles are for this game and start focusing on the facts. The whole reason the infinite was powerful in vBrawl was because approaches not only couldn't stop it, they encouraged it. Some characters couldn't do anything about it at all. Ice Climbers need to either combo in to a grab now, or grab precisely based on poor mistakes on their opponent. They don't hold R, wait for your opponent to do something, and automatically win like you're insinuating.

I really wish someone on this topic would come up with something new or logical. This **** is really annoying.

 

[Rudra]

+ (I mean she cant get hit xd So she wouldnt die that easy anymore (only if you mess up off-stage)... i dont know if this is possible but would be rly cool x)

make nana invicible

invicible

No...please, no. One of the best ways to take advantage of the ICs were to seperate them, and it was usually Nana who was the target of this seperation. Making Nana invincible would break more than removing the infinite fixes imo.

 

[FB Dj_Iskascribble]

I dont think that the chaingrabs should be removed entirely, maybe remove the back throw infinite but keep the ones that take you in one direction, like f-throw->f-throw, since you can tech the spike. Also somehow make it to where you need to dash to regrab, to prevent the tiny step chaingrabs on some characters.
Suggestions for buffing IC's has been posted in another thread, but as far as chaingrabs go, we could figure out interesting things to do with them.
At low percents, maybe nana could blizzard while popo d-throws two or three times. Find a way to incorperate what they already have and mix it in with their grab game.
Another suggestion is to have grab->grab impossible, but make it require an attack. Similiar to my previous example. Popo d-throw to nana blizzard, but make it only possible to regrab while they are in hitstun from the blizzard so they could potentially DI out. This would work at low percents. At mid percents maybe popo F-throw-> nana squall to keep them from flying to far so a regrab or a smash becomes possible.
Idk, just a thought.

 

[Ulevo]

The issue becomes if we remove the feature of them CGing in place, we now have to look at either banning stages again or we modify the CG further. The reason why we no longer have the need to ban stages with walls, such as Corneria, is because the only characters that can infinite you against a wall are ICs, and that is a moot point since they can infinite you anywhere if they land a grab. All of a sudden, if they're restricted to walls, the walls need to be considered a threat to the stage design, and that limits our stage options.

However, if you can tech off the wall they throw you in to, this may all be irrelevant. I am not sure about that.

 

[FB Dj_Iskascribble]

Well that wouldnt work if grab->attack was the only way to get a regrab as DI will become a factor.

 

[Team Giza]

Right, let's nerf Jiggz' ability to stall under the ledge...

If we can find a way to do it without badly hurting her recovery or combo game then I am all for it.

Suggestions for buffing IC's has been posted in another thread, but as far as chaingrabs go, we could figure out interesting things to do with them.
At low percents, maybe nana could blizzard while popo d-throws two or three times. Find a way to incorperate what they already have and mix it in with their grab game.
Another suggestion is to have grab->grab impossible, but make it require an attack. Similiar to my previous example. Popo d-throw to nana blizzard, but make it only possible to regrab while they are in hitstun from the blizzard so they could potentially DI out. This would work at low percents. At mid percents maybe popo F-throw-> nana squall to keep them from flying to far so a regrab or a smash becomes possible.

Thank you for throwing out ideas. I have already been working to make some of these examples possible.

 

[shanus]

The issue becomes if we remove the feature of them CGing in place, we now have to look at either banning stages again or we modify the CG further. The reason why we no longer have the need to ban stages with walls, such as Corneria, is because the only characters that can infinite you against a wall are ICs, and that is a moot point since they can infinite you anywhere if they land a grab. All of a sudden, if they're restricted to walls, the walls need to be considered a threat to the stage design, and that limits our stage options.

However, if you can tech off the wall they throw you in to, this may all be irrelevant. I am not sure about that.

That would not merit a ban. It would be a counterpick.

 

[Green'n'Clean]

I'd rather have a non-viable character which does not rely on infinites in the game than one which is viable and does rely on infinites and makes matches ****ing boring to watch. Seriously.
If they don't get viable in Brawl+ we might still have 35+ viable characters, which is ****ing ridiculous for a fighting-game. However, if they do get viable after infinites are removed we get one more viable character. Removing their infinites and buffing them is a small loss/epic win strategy, while not removing infinites is small loss/ big loss (you get either a worthless character or make a small percentage of matches boring as hell).

 

[Plum]

That would not merit a ban. It would be a counterpick.

I'm glad that somebody understands that the Smash series is about of matchups and counterpicking

I just really fail to see why this has to change.
And why would Sirlin ever say this needs to be banned if it doesn't break the game? Doesn't that completely go against his biggest reason for a ban? If you can't warrant the ban then it doesn't need a ban according to him.

I really don't think you can bring game design into this either. What fighting game out there that has a competitive scene doesn't have abuses of the design?
And you can use the same argument that wavedashing isn't an abuse of design rather an abuse of physics.
Brawl gives you the ability to control Nana while Popo is in the middle of an action. Any character can also grab another character out of hitstun. By using the infinite I am merely using the physics of Brawl in a favorable manner to myself.
My real point though is that Brawl + is supposed to make Brawl more COMPETITIVE. If the infinites do not harm the competitive scene, why should they be removed?
DDD's infinite rendered a handful of characters unplayable; that does harm the competitive scene. The IC's infinite does no such thing.

Why does Brawl+ need to "fix" something that isn't broken? Saying that we should fix something that resulted from poor game design is a horrible argument because we are making a competitive game and the infinites do not cripple the competitive play of the game in any way, shape or form. Why does game design have to even be brought up when the core of Brawl+ is the competitive play?

 

[Team Giza]

Brawl gives you the ability to control Nana while Popo is in the middle of an action. Any character can also grab another character out of hitstun. By using the infinite I am merely using the physics of Brawl in a favorable manner to myself.

And as the designers of Brawl+ we should fix this by making a grab escape method that effects all characters (including ICs). Trying to get rid of infinites like this would be a good thing for brawl+ overall. You would still be able to abuse this system to your advantage but it wouldn't always lead to a regrab that becomes an infinite.

Why does Brawl+ need to "fix" something that isn't broken? Saying that we should fix something that resulted from poor game design is a horrible argument because we are making a competitive game and the infinites do not cripple the competitive play of the game in any way, shape or form. Why does game design have to even be brought up when the core of Brawl+ is the competitive play?

Then I suppose we should also unnerf Pikachu's chainthrow and Sheik's f-tilt while we are at it? There are ways to fix the ICs so they have better desyncing capabilities and still have the most deadly chainthrows in the game by far while still removing the flaw of an infinite.

I seriously don't understand why people want to fix the flawed game mechanics that were in brawl for Brawl+ anymore. That was part of the entire project and a lot of our decisions have been based of fixing flaws like these. I do not understand why the Ice Climbers infinite should be an exception to this.

 

[Ulevo]

Then I suppose we should also unnerf Pikachu's chainthrow and Sheik's f-tilt while we are at it? There are ways to fix the ICs so they have better desyncing capabilities and still have the most deadly chainthrows in the game by far while still removing the flaw of an infinite.

Those are broken Giza. They work on every single character, they're easy to execute, easy to set up and easy to perform, they easily reach kill percent and set up for a kill, and have next to no requirements at all. They're also equipped on characters that are not intricately flawed.