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

[Arcansi]

Ok, so my main point is that infinites(and regrabs and super long combos) should be banned in the case that they

1. Heavily Influence a matchup (Falco on Bowser)(Not the best example, but Idk if DK can recover from it or not.)

2. Are easy enough to do (If luigi had a 1 frame non-bufferable ftilt lock that'd be fine.)

3. Do a large amount of damage (50%+ is the base I'm working with right now, although it is arguable. A stock is automatically yes in this catagory.)
NOTE: I may update this as I remember more things/am proven differently then what I think.

EDIT: Infinites may not have been the right word, basically I meant any true combo that has a good amount of low-risk high-reward and isn't acceptable in the matchup (E.G. IC's 0-deathing MK is acceptable).
Discuss.

 

[Alien Vision]

Cry babies should be banned.



/Thread

 

[Flayl]

I'm not gonna say Falco's chaingrab doesn't hurt Bowser, but it's never a guaranteed stock nor is it the main problem in the matchup. In fact, all the Bowsers that have good reaction time think Falco is one of the several top tiers he can manage (by outplaying them by a considerable amount, but you get my meaning).

The only problem I have with infinites being legal is the double standard that it creates with a universal LGL.

Why is it fair to do 49% off a combo but not 51%?

 

[Arcansi]

I'm not gonna say Falco's chaingrab doesn't hurt Bowser, but it's never a guaranteed stock nor is it the main problem in the matchup. In fact, all the Bowsers that have good reaction time think Falco is one of the several top tiers he can manage (by outplaying them by a considerable amount, but you get my meaning).

And what we can do is make the skill gap less.

This isn't bad, is it?

The only problem I have with infinites being legal is the double standard that it creates with a universal LGL.

With as in along with, I hope. That makes the most sense.

Why is it fair to do 49% off a combo but not 51%?

Because it has to end somewhere, and unless a better number is found (I'm open to legit ideas.) we have that.

It's also a percent that would keep the advantage but not make it take a stock automatically. I would like for it to be lower but until I can back it up a lot I won't suggest that.

 

[Chuee]

Cry babies should be banned.



/Thread

You should be banned

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

So basically we should ban ICs?

Or are they fair because you have to practice their infinites?

 

[Arcansi]

ICs would probably be matchup based, unless anyone has a better way of doing it.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Define "easy".

 

[Arcansi]

Define "easy".

Can be done reliably with minimum amounts of practice.

I don't know of any infinites in this game that aren't easy, but this is incase something like that comes up.

 

[Ussi]

... There was already the slippery slope effect of this argument..:


Infinites banned.

What about 0-death? same result as an infinite now.. If banned then...

What about CGs that lead to kill %? Cause the 0-death was only cause they died instead of surviving... if banned then...

What about moves/combinations that lead to kill %? Cause well.. why only limit grabs?

You might as well ban using the same move in succession, must always use a different move in a row


This would be too much of a pain to check replays over and over just to see if someone did a forbidden combo at a forbidden %... like Shiek's ftilt twice -_- or something like that.

 

[Tesh]

*thread title on SRK or melee boards*
"Brawl Players Ban the only Combos they have"

 

[Alien Vision]

You should be banned

Banned for speaking the truth? Heavens T' Bitsy!

 

[Arcansi]

... There was already the slippery slope effect of this argument..:

You mean the slippery slope fallacy?

Infinites banned.

What about 0-death? same result as an infinite now.. If banned then...

What about CGs that lead to kill %? Cause the 0-death was only cause they died instead of surviving... if banned then...

What about moves/combinations that lead to kill %? Cause well.. why only limit grabs?

I mean to include all of this stuff in my OP, sorry.

This would be too much of a pain to check replays over and over just to see if someone did a forbidden combo at a forbidden %... like Shiek's ftilt twice -_- or something like that.

Wouldn't that be true of doing IDC or anything else (so not an issue)

*thread title on SRK or melee boards*
"Brawl Players Ban the only Combos they have"

It wouldn't be banning them completly, just limiting them so they aren't extremely low-risk high-reward.

I don't know why it's unreasonable to expect legit discussion from most of you guys.

 

[Tesh]

You wanna ban it based on risk/reward? Lets ban Olimar's pivot grab then.

 

[Arcansi]

You wanna ban it based on risk/reward? Lets ban Olimar's pivot grab then.

I wouldn't be opposed to doing a lot of stuff like this.

It's the community you have a beef with here.

 

[Ussi]

(E.G. IC's 0-deathing MK/DDD/Falco is acceptable).
Discuss.

IC 0-deathing Falco is low risk/high reward (+2 MU)

.. so is DDD



MK isn't low risk/high reward since IC actually loses to MK even with the infinite

 

[Arcansi]

IC 0-deathing Falco is low risk/high reward (+2 MU)

.. so is DDD



MK isn't low risk/high reward since IC actually loses to MK even with the infinite

Edited opening post, sorry.

 

[Ussi]

so...

what happens if IC goes from winning the MU with the infinite to losing the MU without the infinite?

and what about even MUs with the infinite?

 

[polarity]

I can't believe anyone would want to add to the ridiculous rules mire this game already suffers from.

 

[Arcansi]

so...

what happens if IC goes from winning the MU with the infinite to losing the MU without the infinite?

and what about even MUs with the infinite?

Even MU's are even, and shouldn't be touched without counterbalance.

ICs keeps its losing state, unless it is something drastic (55-45 for ICS to 70-30 Opponent.)

Essentially, whatever is as close to even as possible (determined by character boards, preferably.)

 

[Ussi]

Cause character boards are awesome at deciding what the MU ratio/number is

/sarcasm


Just follow the BBR MU Chart

 

[Arcansi]

I don't know a lot about Smashboards as a whole.

All I know a lot about is competition and competitiveness.

NOTE: How do we determine what the matchup would be afterward?

 

[polarity]

I don't know a lot about Smashboards as a whole.

All I know a lot about is competition and competitiveness.

You don't seem to know a lot about that since there isn't a single successful competitive game that takes such a ridiculously heavy-handed, litigative approach to making the game fair. I can't even imagine how many people this stupid idea would turn off from playing the game competitively. I'm thinking of going to my first tournament and I see all these matchup-specific rules I'm just gonna go "oh **** this" and stay home.

 

[Arcansi]

You don't seem to know a lot about that since there isn't a single successful competitive game that takes such a ridiculously heavy-handed, litigative approach to making the game fair. I can't even imagine how many people this stupid idea would turn off from playing the game competitively. I'm thinking of going to my first tournament and I see all these matchup-specific rules I'm just gonna go "oh **** this" and stay home.

This argument makes sense.

However if your in the competitive scene enough to know these combos and such you should know the rules exist beforehand.

Also, it isn't really that much of a burden.

NOTE: Competition and competitiveness have almost nothing to do with you being 'scared of the ruleset'. That has to do with you just not being able to take it, logically.

No Offense.

 

[polarity]

If the mire of outside-of-game rules makes it a pain in the *** to just focus on playing the game as it actually exists, that absolutely affects competition.

 

[Arcansi]

If the mire of outside-of-game rules makes it a pain in the *** to just focus on playing the game as it actually exists, that absolutely affects competition.

Ok, so you main IC's (the ones most affected by the rule). Literally ALL you have to do is think of one combo off of a grab that's legal in every matchup, and walk around with a list (on your phone or something, in your pocket, ask the opponent) of who you can and can not do the full cg's on.

It's not even that hard, no extra practice is required (because you could just do any IC's infinite a finite amount of time) and memorizing a list like that isn't even required, although it will come with time.

 

[| Big D |]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4DOrgNbZyY

Ban Wario

But seriously, all these techs and combos allow for a healthy meta game. It allow for players to develop tech skill and learn MUs as opposed to just knowing your character traits alone.

 

[Arcansi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4DOrgNbZyY

Ban Wario

But seriously, all these techs and combos allow for a healthy meta game. It allow for players to develop tech skill and learn MUs as opposed to just knowing your character traits alone.

You should rephrase that as "It allows people who can abuse it to enjoy pulling it off every once while leaving a bad taste in the people it was done on mouth's (except in rare cases, like ICs on MK).

Note that infinites and 0-deaths are by definition unhealthy for competition 99% of the time.

 

[Ussi]

MvC keep their infinites, its hard to get them started though

 

[Arcansi]

MvC keep their infinites, its hard to get them started though

No they don't.

Akuma's...Didn't ammy have one at one point?

There were like 4 that I know of that got patched out almost instantly.

EDIT: Unless you mean MvC2 or something, which I don't know as much about but I've heard those are HARD to keep going/hard to set up.

Much harder then in brawl.

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

Ok, my main problem with this is that you want to create a rule that helps out characters based on singular matchups. The suggestion that ICs can 0 to death MK but not other characters just because the matchup isn't in their favor, and then allowing them to not use them on other characters because they lose the matchup due to that fact and that fact alone is ridiculous. The Ice Climbers hardly have anything out of their Chaingrabs that gives them even matchups and essentially nerfs a character. If they weren't in the game, then I'd say you almost have a platform to stand on.

 

[Ussi]

getting patched out the game =/= making a rule to limit infinites



what i'd give if nintendo would actually give a damn and patch SSBB positively

 

[Arcansi]

Ok, my main problem with this is that you want to create a rule that helps out characters based on singular matchups. The suggestion that ICs can 0 to death MK but not other characters just because the matchup isn't in their favor, and then allowing them to not use them on other characters because they lose the matchup due to that fact and that fact alone is ridiculous. The Ice Climbers hardly have anything out of their Chaingrabs that gives them even matchups and essentially nerfs a character. If they weren't in the game, then I'd say you almost have a platform to stand on.

Tons of rules nerf and buff characters, and it is not ridiculous to do so.

Also the rule would be put in place with the intention of balancing ICs as far as possible.

EDIT: I would be against removing the CG if it put the match from like a +1 ICs to a -3 opponent, btw.

getting patched out the game =/= making a rule to limit infinites



what i'd give if nintendo would actually give a damn and patch SSBB positively

The community likely would've done it had Capcom not.

But yeah, I hear you. They don't want it competitive though.

 

[GTZ]

I honestly think that the infinite banning shouldn't be "situational" at all.. it would be too confusing... I'd say limit the overall damage percentage limit from the annoying 300% limit to something a bit more reasonable like 100%-125%... then that way matches may still have the "chain combo-oriented gameplay, but it puts a buffer on absolutely stupid combo grabs that make some character match-ups just plain suck... most characters, if not all, can be knocked out relatively easily at 125%, and yes it may be too "generalized" when we are talking about each individual match-up over the entire brawl roster, but in essence it may just be a great positive change to the competitive scene overall...

as for the whole plz nintendo patch our Brawl game.. eh.. well... with the confirmation of SSB4 (lol @ 3ds + wiiU, but i'm still excited) there have been solid rumors/supposed confirmations that sakurai has stated an actual team of programmers will balance the new entry to the series, not sakurai himself, which I may be ill informed but that's what I heard... "I won't be able to look at every aspect of the game and balance out all the characters by myself this time," Sakurai wrote...

lets hope a team can balance the game and make it what it should be without making it super street fighter 4 lol.. I'm all for the new title but it's a long ways away... lets hope they hire extremely competent people to create this game

 

[Arcansi]

I honestly think that the infinite banning shouldn't be "situational" at all.. it would be too confusing... I'd say limit the overall damage percentage limit from the annoying 300% limit to something a bit more reasonable like 100%-125%... then that way matches may still have the "chain combo-oriented gameplay, but it puts a buffer on absolutely stupid combo grabs that make some character match-ups just plain suck... most characters, if not all, can be knocked out relatively easily at 125%, and yes it may be too "generalized" when we are talking about each individual match-up over the entire brawl roster, but in essence it may just be a great positive change to the competitive scene overall...

Wouldn't fix the problem.

 

[| Big D |]

Some infinites are easier than others.

QAL, DDD chaingrab, ZSS dsmash lock, SNL, IC chaingrab, fhanfus loop, GR on Wario, footstool banana lock, Pikachu dthrow on Wario at the end of a platform, Michelin combo, and tire lock. There are a lot of infinites out there, out of all of them, only DDD's is easy. The others are hard and require practice. If your character struggles with the MU, either learn it, or learn another character.

 

[polarity]

The community likely would've done it had Capcom not.

No, they wouldn't, because the fighting game community historically does not like litigating and adding rules on top of what exists in the game. Why? Because it's a slippery slope to turning into the rules mess that Brawl has.

 

[Arcansi]

No, they wouldn't, because the fighting game community historically does not like litigating and adding rules on top of what exists in the game. Why? Because it's a slippery slope to turning into the rules mess that Brawl has.

Your proof is what?

Because they totally didn't ban Akuma in SSF2.

Some infinites are easier than others.

QAL, DDD chaingrab, ZSS dsmash lock, SNL, IC chaingrab, fhanfus loop, GR on Wario, footstool banana lock, Pikachu dthrow on Wario at the end of a platform, Michelin combo, and tire lock. There are a lot of infinites out there, out of all of them, only DDD's is easy. The others are hard and require practice. If your character struggles with the MU, either learn it, or learn another character.

Not an argument, more of a statement.

 

[polarity]

Your proof is what?

Because they totally didn't ban Akuma in SSF2.

The 20 year history of the fighting game scene where the only things banned have been characters that render winning with any other character an impossible task (Akuma), or bugs that render the game literally unplayable?

The fact that you'd compare something like the Captain America infinite to ST Akuma is ****ing laughable.

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

Haha, the community banning something themselves? In fighting games outside of Smash, the only rules are rounds/time/MAYBE banned characters.

Anyway, any rules (there aren't tons) that buffs/nerfs characters aren't done for specific matchups, but for characters as a whole. You are suggesting to change something for separate matchups that isn't something universal. i.e. grab release infinites on Lucas/Ness from Marth, unlike something like a LGL (which is the 'tons of rules' you mentioned I'm assuming) which affects a certain character on a scale of the entire game.