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

[Alphicans]

Gain net balance? Prove it.

And bias against tiers? That's kind of what you're doing. You want to limit cgs to help lower tiered characters....

 

[Zankoku]

Overall? Yeah it is. Why should we be biased based on character tiers, exactly? Becuase I mean the balance gained in matchups like DDD vs DK is VERY worth it. Also, the Snake vs Falco matchup is even RIGHT NOW, and IN YOUR OPINION.

Makes for a bad argument. (although the latter can be debated.)

You lose some balance and gain more. This is a net gain of balance.

That is not a complex rule. Don't do an unavoidable regrab more then 3 times on someone with a single character.

See, this wasn't my opinion alone, or I wouldn't have said it. It's the opinion of a large number of Falco and Snake players. Either way, match-ups themselves are made up of opinions because there is no truly objective way to analyze them.

Anyway, it's rather stupid to add rules that do not actually solve a problem, and instead introduce new ones that you somehow feel are more acceptable due to some possible "net gain of balance". Taking out parts of a game and not getting absolute benefit is not a good idea. You're adding bureaucracy to gameplay mechanics that improve some characters but, instead of not touching others, outright worsen them. I don't see how you can playing Lights Out with rules and "balancing" like this is an improvement.

 

[Ghostbone]

I want to balance things out to a point. Not once have I said I am willing to balance Brawl out 100% at this point and time or any time in the future, and I would appreciate it if everyone would stop assuming this, thank you.

Hmm Ok.

You speak like I wouldn't support such a movement.

You trolling?

Lower stock makes Lucario worse. (there are other more in depth examples too) Higher makes him better.

Side issue, but I'm sure there would be many Lucario mains who would rather have 1 stock against Snake than 3.

 

[Arcansi]

Gain net balance? Prove it.

And bias against tiers? That's kind of what you're doing. You want to limit cgs to help lower tiered characters....

No, I want to limit cgs to help characters that are hurt by CGs.

In the example given, the Falco vs Snake matchup will change not in favour of balance by no more then 10, most likely 5 if that.

The DK DDD matchup will change in favour of balance by atleast 10, if not more.

 

[Ghostbone]

No, I want to limit cgs to help characters that are hurt by CGs.

In the example given, the Falco vs Snake matchup will change not in favour of balance by no more then 10, most likely 5 if that.

The DK DDD matchup will change in favour of balance by atleast 10, if not more.

10 what?
And who decides by how much it changes?

Snake would **** Falco without his chain-grab btw, it's his most effective low percent damager, and generally puts Snake in a terrible position (off-stage)

 

[Alphicans]

The cg makes the m/u for falco. It's not just the grab, it's the fear of the grab. Snake has to play completely different from 0-50% just so there isn't the chance of taking 100+% or a stock. I'd say falco would go from even/winning vs snake to getting soft countered by him.

 

[Asa]

are double nanner combos low risk high reward combos too? :l

 

[Arcansi]

10 what?
And who decides by how much it changes?

Snake would **** Falco without his chain-grab btw, it's his most effective low percent damager, and generally puts Snake in a terrible position (off-stage)

10%, or one number.

The cool thing is, nobody does. Nobody even knows if it's true or not, because it changes all the time!

We know vague things, but we don't know exacts. Makes it easy to make changes that obviously do something and harder to make changes that could do something.

Also, with correct DI snake lands on the stage.

The cg makes the m/u for falco. It's not just the grab, it's the fear of the grab. Snake has to play completely different from 0-50% just so there isn't the chance of taking 100+% or a stock. I'd say falco would go from even/winning vs snake to getting soft countered by him.

1. That's arbitrary.

2. How is this even bad?

 

[Alphicans]

It's contradictory to what you want to accomplish... You want to balance the game out, but limiting cgs doesn't do that. The only way to get around this is to admit perfect balance isn't ideal, but if you admit to that then my argument wins.

 

[Ghostbone]

Also, with correct DI snake lands on the stage.

Then Falco just tech-chases him into f-smash or up-smash or something, and still continues his string.
Point is you're ruining Falco to try and balance out other characters, which is unfair for Falco mains, because you know, the chain-grab is in the game, your 3 grab limit isn't.
/inb4 more stuff on how the LGL isn't in the game.
Faults in the ruleset aren't justification to add more faults.

 

[-LzR-]

Falco can punish landing on the stage after a cg ON REACTION. Our best Falco always punishes me whenever I do it so if I can I just meteorcancel and recover.

Also this thread is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Arcansi, could you please respond to my post which completely demolishes your entire argument? Thanks.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You speak like I wouldn't support such a movement.

Hey guys. Thread over.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

All infinites with less than two characters should be banned

This is all I said. I never said anything about chain grabs. If you ban chain grabs, you are also going to have to ban tilt locks and any true combos. I should also add that Wall infinites should still be legal

 

[phi1ny3]

Lower stock makes Lucario worse. (there are other more in depth examples too) Higher makes him better.

Lower timer makes stalling characters better. Higher makes them worse



You missed the point, kinda, and I apologize because it was a bit vague. My first line was responding to your last sentence.

Actually, about that...

Lucario's cap for stock bonus is conveniently at the three stock mark, he doesn't get any extra buff/debuff for having a +3/-3 difference over his opponent

 

[Ghostbone]

I should also add that Wall infinites should still be legal

What about moving camera infinites?

 

[Arcansi]

It's contradictory to what you want to accomplish... You want to balance the game out, but limiting cgs doesn't do that. The only way to get around this is to admit perfect balance isn't ideal, but if you admit to that then my argument wins.

I could argue this would help us balance hte game out by giving falco more viable counters.

Balanced != everyone 50/50.

Don't assume all the options I have, please. You are not aware.

Then Falco just tech-chases him into f-smash or up-smash or something, and still continues his string.
Point is you're ruining Falco to try and balance out other characters, which is unfair for Falco mains, because you know, the chain-grab is in the game, your 3 grab limit isn't.
/inb4 more stuff on how the LGL isn't in the game.
Faults in the ruleset aren't justification to add more faults.

inb4 doesn't mean anything.
LGL isn't in the game.

M2K's infinite (And Extended) cape glitch were removed. This was a severe nerf for M2K, and wasn't even gamebreaking with the extended cape glitch (assuming it wasn't done for a super long period of time)

Faults in the ruleset aren't considered faults else they would be changed or removed, as the ruleset aims to be as perfect as possible, with few and negligible exceptions. They are just considered part of the ruleset.

And this part of the ruleset happens to advocate adding this other part past your argument, at this point.

Soo, rebuttal?

Falco can punish landing on the stage after a cg ON REACTION. Our best Falco always punishes me whenever I do it so if I can I just meteorcancel and recover.

With a tech chase? Or like unavoidably? If so, how?

Also, can't you tech the landing with enough practice?

Actually, about that...

Lucario's cap for stock bonus is conveniently at the three stock mark, he doesn't get any extra buff/debuff for having a +3/-3 difference over his opponent

So less nerfs him, more does not buff him. Ok.

Arcansi, could you please respond to my post which completely demolishes your entire argument? Thanks.

Sure gimee a sec. I'll assume it's the last post I didn't respond to. Sorry about that.

Hey guys. Thread over.

How?

Because I think differently then you?

So you'd support a tilt limit for the Snake/Jigglypuff match-up? Cool, it still isn't perfectly even though. If you add a rule that if Snake gets hit by Rest he automatically loses a stock then you are getting closer to even, and you should probably ban him from having more than one grenade out at a time.

Then for the Falco vs. Jigglypuff match-up, its going to need a LGL so Puff can't plank him as well as a jab limit for Falco as that is one of his strongest tools in the match-up.

Diddy shouldn't be allowed to use peanuts against Puff... That should make it pretty close to even.

I can keep going if you'd like, and disagreeing with any one of these suggestions would be a massive double standard on your part.

1. Your assuming I want 50/50 matchups all around, and that's wrong. Please don't assume things, as 50/50 matchups all around is only one form of balance, and not even an optimal form. (In Fact, it goes against what you guys want!)

2. There is a point where balance stops being a priority and rules that prevent you from doing things do. Some of your rules would definitely cross this line. Mine don't as the only thing they prevent is just a really bad thing, and it actually removes nothing from the most basic encounters.

 

[Zankoku]

"I'm thinking differently" only goes so far as a point; well, it's more like you can make it a counterpoint to argue against majority rule because that isn't a proper logical point, but you can't just run the converse and say that your being incorrect isn't even a possibility just because there's heavy disagreement with just about everything you've said.

Faults in the ruleset aren't considered faults else they would be changed or removed, as the ruleset aims to be as perfect as possible, with few and negligible exceptions. They are just considered part of the ruleset.

And this part of the ruleset happens to advocate adding this other part past your argument, at this point.

Odd... Did you miss the part where there are a fair number of people arguing about the presence of both of those rules in the current Unity ruleset? However, constantly making examples out of already-controversial rules to push forward your own agenda isn't a great approach anyway.

1. Your assuming I want 50/50 matchups all around, and that's wrong. Please don't assume things, as 50/50 matchups all around is only one form of balance, and not even an optimal form. (In Fact, it goes against what you guys want!)

I could've sworn the last time I talked with you, you were attempting just that - 50/50 match-ups everywhere. And, no, removing things you feel are low-risk high-reward is not implementing a degree of balance that everyone or even most people want - the object of the research game is to find the least risky options that promise the greatest reward. Just as Wobbles was rather upset when after finding his namesake infinite various tournaments banned it, you'll find much less support for removing even less impactful techniques from a game that already consists of a lot of careful poking and zoning due to the general lack of said options.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

What about moving camera infinites?

they should also be legal since it only works on one legal stage or you can just ban the stage

 

[Arcansi]

"I'm thinking differently" only goes so far as a point; well, it's more like you can make it a counterpoint to argue against majority rule because that isn't a proper logical point, but you can't just run the converse and say that your being incorrect isn't even a possibility just because there's heavy disagreement with just about everything you've said.

I never did. I never have. Heavy disagreement is expected when I go against the status quo and how the community has learned to feel.

Odd... Did you miss the part where there are a fair number of people arguing about the presence of both of those rules in the current Unity ruleset? However, constantly making examples out of already-controversial rules to push forward your own agenda isn't a great approach anyway.

They aren't considered faults by the majority of the URC, as far as I've been told (see:

There really hasn't been very much discussion on changing anything as of late.

)

It's an approach that works the way I want it too. It's not like im at any advantage fighting over a largely subjective matter (and always being questioned on it.), with people who can come and go as they please, (while I have to respond to everything) and against the status quo (I don't even know if people consider my rule before posting!).

I could've sworn the last time I talked with you, you were attempting just that - 50/50 match-ups everywhere. And, no, removing things you feel are low-risk high-reward is not implementing a degree of balance that everyone or even most people want - the object of the research game is to find the least risky options that promise the greatest reward. Just as Wobbles was rather upset when after finding his namesake infinite various tournaments banned it, you'll find much less support for removing even less impactful techniques from a game that already consists of a lot of careful poking and zoning due to the general lack of said options.

1. The last time you talked to me is now officially what you get to base your arguments off of when there's a whole thread? No. I change my ideas about stuff constantly, but I always post it where it is relevant, so it is known and I can expect it to be known.

Aside from that, assuming you didn't want to go through like 2 pages of arguments, I can see what your saying. I am actually arguing for a limit of 3 unavoidable regrabs with any one character.

A lack of support is expected. It cannot be used as an option due to a fallacy I should have no need to tell you about. Just incase, wikipedia Argumentum Ad Populum if you need further info.

 

[Zankoku]

They aren't considered faults by the majority of the URC, as far as I've been told

The URC hasn't looked into it yet, but it may become a possibility if people continue to bring it up. The Infinite Dimensional Cape in particular will likely get removed if Meta Knight's ban becomes official and final.

A lack of support is expected. It cannot be used as an option due to a fallacy I should have no need to tell you about. Just incase, wikipedia Argumentum Ad Populum if you need further info.

If you are not trying to make a game that more people would want to play, what are you trying to do? In this case, "majority rules" is a very valid argument when it comes to how Brawl is to be played. It's very hard to argue against everyone, "no, this really is a better game, guys", just as items, valid as they might or might not actually be in competitive play, remain set to Off and None in almost all tournaments and the Unity ruleset. The rules of Smash are very much based in majority player preference, and if you truly intend to bring a better variant to the table, you sure as hell better convince that majority that the game really is more "fun" to play.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

1. Your assuming I want 50/50 matchups all around, and that's wrong. Please don't assume things, as 50/50 matchups all around is only one form of balance, and not even an optimal form. (In Fact, it goes against what you guys want!)

Irrelevant. Replace 50/50 with any other MU number that differs from the standard MU number (excluding your surgical rules, that is) and my point still stands.

2. There is a point where balance stops being a priority and rules that prevent you from doing things do. Some of your rules would definitely cross this line. Mine don't as the only thing they prevent is just a really bad thing, and it actually removes nothing from the most basic encounters.

Wait... what?

You wanted to enforce a tilt limit for the Jigglypuff/Snake MU, even if that is exactly on the line you are drawing, that still allows for a ****-ton of surgical rules.

Face it mate, your philosophy is flawed.

 

[Ghostbone]

inb4 doesn't mean anything.
LGL isn't in the game.

M2K's infinite (And Extended) cape glitch were removed. This was a severe nerf for M2K, and wasn't even gamebreaking with the extended cape glitch (assuming it wasn't done for a super long period of time)

Faults in the ruleset aren't considered faults else they would be changed or removed, as the ruleset aims to be as perfect as possible, with few and negligible exceptions. They are just considered part of the ruleset.

And this part of the ruleset happens to advocate adding this other part past your argument, at this point.

Soo, rebuttal?

...I think you meant MK's infinite dimensional cape...not M2K's
Anyway if he had that even without stalling capabilities he'd be the most broken character in any fighting game.

And they are faults, they're just necessary, otherwise people wouldn't play the game.
Having a competitive scene > Objectivity
I mean, Mario Bros is competitive...doesn't mean many people would go to a tournament with it legal (unless it was offering large prize pools)

Edit:

So less nerfs him, more does not buff him. Ok.

Again not really, just because Lucario gets boosts from being behind, doesn't mean that having more stocks makes him better.
I don't think it'd be hard to find lots of Lucario mains who would agree that the Snake match-up would be easier with 1 stock than with 3 stocks.
Because the way the match-up goes is, if Lucario dies first, then he's at low percent, and can't kill Snake until he's at like 80% because Snake's so heavy, and now Snake has a massive lead.
If Lucario dies first, Snake can still just kill him quickly, and won't be at that much of a disadvantage.

they should also be legal since it only works on one legal stage or you can just ban the stage

So is it fair for D3 to infinite DK at any point during RC or what?

Also what do you think of ledge infinites?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The way I see it, Smash Bros. is unplayable without some surgical rules.

However, adding these rules needs to be warranted and consistent. The rules you are adding aren't really necessary to play the game, and introducing them results in a massive influx of double standard situations.

 

[Ghostbone]

Oh and Arcansi, your 3 unavoidable grab limit is unenforceable when it comes to D3, due to how complex his standing chain-grab on Samus, Mario and Luigi is due to stale moves and pummelling.

And then there's "infinites" such as Ike's on Wario, where he must run and pivot grab afaik.
This leaves a chance of tripping, which makes the grabs 'avoidable' yea?

 

[Alphicans]

Hey Arcansi, when you completely change your position, how about some notice instead of posting **** that makes no sense compared to what you've said previously.

Also how does this:

"I could argue this would help us balance hte game out by giving falco more viable counters.

Balanced != everyone 50/50.

Don't assume all the options I have, please. You are not aware."

Make sense? Balanced = everyone 50/50... Ok. I just said limiting the cg makes match-ups that were previously 50/50 not so anymore. Also I thought the whole point was to get rid of counters, so why would you want more counters for falco? It seems that under your criteria for a competitive game, more even match-ups is optimal, so with what you're doing, you're eliminating some even match-ups and making a bunch of soft counters across the board. Is 0 even match-ups (but lots of soft counters) better than a few even match-ups?

Also could you please present your full idea for a ruleset. It's becoming quite annoying when someone brings up a point and you say "don't assume my position." The very fact you have to say that shows how weak your position is... You're hiding behind a wall with an infinite amount of variations behind it. Present it, leave it out there, let us critique it, and if you have any defence you defend that position and that position only. If you are forced to change it, then you lose.

 

[Arcansi]

Irrelevant. Replace 50/50 with any other MU number that differs from the standard MU number (excluding your surgical rules, that is) and my point still stands.

Except no. Some characters counter others and this is ok. There are small imbalances in matchups and this is ok.

Larger things cross the line.

Wait... what?

You wanted to enforce a tilt limit for the Jigglypuff/Snake MU, even if that is exactly on the line you are drawing, that still allows for a ****-ton of surgical rules.

Face it mate, your philosophy is flawed.

In an optimal world? Yeah I would support it, because I know people would be reasonable and be open minded and welcome change that pushes our game in a positive direction.

In the real world? I would object due to knowledge of the community. I support the notion, just not in our current situation.

Also I never said I wanted to enforce one. And don't tell me my philosophy is flawed, because I don't even think you know it. (Or atleast, that's what this post seems to indicate, no offence.)

...I think you meant MK's infinite dimensional cape...not M2K's
Anyway if he had that even without stalling capabilities he'd be the most broken character in any fighting game.

No, not at all. Also interactions between games aren't doable without knowledge of how to deal with all the finite things. (see: Street Fighter vs Brawl = Life or Stocks? How much time?)

And they are faults, they're just necessary, otherwise people wouldn't play the game.
Having a competitive scene > Objectivity
I mean, Mario Bros is competitive...doesn't mean many people would go to a tournament with it legal (unless it was offering large prize pools)

This is a community opinion thing, something that we aren't arguing.

Unless people wouldn't play the game if they weren't allowed more then 3 regrabs, which I know won't happen.

Edit:
Again not really, just because Lucario gets boosts from being behind, doesn't mean that having more stocks makes him better.
I don't think it'd be hard to find lots of Lucario mains who would agree that the Snake match-up would be easier with 1 stock than with 3 stocks.
Because the way the match-up goes is, if Lucario dies first, then he's at low percent, and can't kill Snake until he's at like 80% because Snake's so heavy, and now Snake has a massive lead.
If Lucario dies first, Snake can still just kill him quickly, and won't be at that much of a disadvantage.

Lucario as a character being buffed doesn't mean all his matchups will be. Also, lots doesn't prove anything.

The way I see it, Smash Bros. is unplayable without some surgical rules.

Ok.

However, adding these rules needs to be warranted and consistent. The rules you are adding aren't really necessary to play the game, and introducing them results in a massive influx of double standard situations.

Many rules aren't necessary to play the game. There are already double standards.

This is nothing new concept wise. Also, it doesn't put in double standards, really. The way I see it, all the things you present are based on limiting a base action(that can be interacted with) of the character, whereas I am limiting something that cannot be interacted with and has a highly broken risk-reward ratio.

Does this make sense?

Oh and Arcansi, your 3 unavoidable grab limit is unenforceable when it comes to D3, due to how complex his standing chain-grab on Samus, Mario and Luigi is due to stale moves and pummelling.

And then there's "infinites" such as Ike's on Wario, where he must run and pivot grab afaik.
This leaves a chance of tripping, which makes the grabs 'avoidable' yea?

There is nothing the opposing player can do to avoid it. Therefore it is not avoidable.

How complex it is? Explain, you don't say anything that doesn't mean we can just see if he gets a regrab 4+ times in a row before the opponent would be able to react.

Hey Arcansi, when you completely change your position, how about some notice instead of posting **** that makes no sense compared to what you've said previously.

Do you read my posts? Are you aware of the fact that I did do this?

The rule has been amended to 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'

Credit to Jebus.

Also how does this:

"I could argue this would help us balance hte game out by giving falco more viable counters.

Balanced != everyone 50/50.

Don't assume all the options I have, please. You are not aware."

Make sense? Balanced = everyone 50/50... Ok. I just said limiting the cg makes match-ups that were previously 50/50 not so anymore. Also I thought the whole point was to get rid of counters, so why would you want more counters for falco? It seems that under your criteria for a competitive game, more even match-ups is optimal, so with what you're doing, you're eliminating some even match-ups and making a bunch of soft counters across the board. Is 0 even match-ups (but lots of soft counters) better than a few even match-ups?

Optimally in a zero-sum system it's actually the same. More or less soft counters makes for better or worse play depending on how the community sees character selection.

Also could you please present your full idea for a ruleset. It's becoming quite annoying when someone brings up a point and you say "don't assume my position." The very fact you have to say that shows how weak your position is... You're hiding behind a wall with an infinite amount of variations behind it. Present it, leave it out there, let us critique it, and if you have any defence you defend that position and that position only. If you are forced to change it, then you lose.

If I am forced to change it then I have learned from my mistake and know my old one was flawed.

I mean, I could make a whole new thread but that would be illogical. You shouldn't be working to take me down, you should be looking at seeing if any part of what im asking makes sense, and then seeing how you can improve on the part that does and remove the part that doesn't.

Arguments aren't binary in this situation.

Current Rule: 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'

ALSO: My full idea for a ruleset isn't being argued here. Note that me presenting such would require you guys presenting a ton of info too, and then the discussion being locked with only us as participants. Not a good thing.

 

[Alphicans]

"Optimally in a zero-sum system it's actually the same. More or less soft counters makes for better or worse play depending on how the community sees character selection."

Excellent, so we agree. It's the same, so therefore the current ruleset is better because it requires less rules. Agreed?

 

[Arcansi]

"Optimally in a zero-sum system it's actually the same. More or less soft counters makes for better or worse play depending on how the community sees character selection."

Excellent, so we agree. It's the same, so therefore the current ruleset is better because it requires less rules. Agreed?

You don't understand.

This system is not zero-sum. My change would move it towards zero-sum, therefore making it better.

Should i be defining new terms as I go?

 

[Zankoku]

I think you should define a proper goal before moving in a new direction of "forward" each time someone discusses this with you.

 

[Arcansi]

I think you should define a proper goal before moving in a new direction of "forward" each time someone discusses this with you.

Forward = more balanced.

I just adjusted my goal to be even more balanced.

I also defined my goal as it came up.

You just neglected to read it. I should not be the one who needs to change this, as far as I can tell.

 

[Zankoku]

And by more balanced, you mean how you think all match-ups that will be beneficially affected from any given change are going to outweigh all match-ups that will not?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Except no. Some characters counter others and this is ok. There are small imbalances in matchups and this is ok.

Larger things cross the line.

I realize that... re-read what I said. I said that the MU ratio isn't important, so why would you start talking about counters and ****? Lol

In an optimal world? Yeah I would support it, because I know people would be reasonable and be open minded and welcome change that pushes our game in a positive direction.

In the real world? I would object due to knowledge of the community. I support the notion, just not in our current situation.

So, if you support a tilt limit in an optimal world for that match-up, you would also accept every single change I could suggest that would be equally or less drastic than that one? Glad we got that out of the way.

Tell me when you're doing writing your rule-book.

Also I never said I wanted to enforce one. And don't tell me my philosophy is flawed, because I don't even think you know it. (Or atleast, that's what this post seems to indicate, no offence.)

Can you concisely tell me your philosophy then? If you have to tell people over and over they just aren't getting it, that isn't out fault, lol.

Many rules aren't necessary to play the game. There are already double standards.

And I don't support any of them.

Just because something is already broken, doesn't mean we need to break it further for the sake of it.

I made a topic about how "if we are making ledge-grab limits and stuff, we might as well do x, y and z too!", I didn't mean it seriously however, I was using it to point out how silly our pre-existing rules are.

So I guess I should be thanking you, now everyone can see how ******** our game would be if we followed the LGL to its logical conclusion.

This is nothing new concept wise. Also, it doesn't put in double standards, really. The way I see it, all the things you present are based on limiting a base action(that can be interacted with) of the character, whereas I am limiting something that cannot be interacted with and has a highly broken risk-reward ratio.

Does this make sense?

No, the interaction part doesn't make sense,

I'm done with this.

Everyone else: Have fun arguing with Jebus the 2nd.
Jebus the 2nd: >_>

 

[Ghostbone]

In an optimal world? Yeah I would support it, because I know people would be reasonable and be open minded and welcome change that pushes our game in a positive direction.

Except all your ideas are pushing the game in a negative direction, and ruining any drive for improvement.
How do people improve? By finding new strategies that take less risk and give more reward, to get an edge over their opponent.
Your goal in this "optimal world" is to deny someone any form of an advantage they obtain.

There's no point in competing if you can't be better than the other competitors.

Unless people wouldn't play the game if they weren't allowed more then 3 regrabs, which I know won't happen.

Host a tournament with that rule, see how many people go to it.
I can tell you hardly anyone would go, and those that would go would only go because they have no alternative for that day. (if you tried to host a tournament with that rule at the same time as another tournament or meet, and you weren't offering a large pot, nobody would go)

Lucario as a character being buffed doesn't mean all his matchups will be. Also, lots doesn't prove anything.

This confuses me.
So Lucario mains aren't smart enough to know whether their character would be buffed or not?
His aura boost really doesn't help him, aura is often a liability because if he dies first he loses all his kill power.

There is nothing the opposing player can do to avoid it. Therefore it is not avoidable.

How complex it is? Explain, you don't say anything that doesn't mean we can just see if he gets a regrab 4+ times in a row before the opponent would be able to react.

Well I mean, it's not only with D3, but his is the most obvious.
His requires pummelling after every grab once it's staled enough. This gives you time to mash out obviously. So it's escapable. Idk the percentage the fastest masher could mash out at, but likely over 200%. TAS could mash out at 999%
Since most people couldn't do this, where do you set the limit? Do you set it differently depending on the opponent? (ridiculous I hope you'll agree)
Extending this to other characters, if someone regrabs 3 times then pummels, that's technically giving someone the ability to mash out, making the chain-grab escapable, so they could just re-grab 3 times, pummel, then re-grab 3 times again, and your rule would allow that.

 

[Arcansi]

And by more balanced, you mean how you think all match-ups that will be beneficially affected from any given change are going to outweigh all match-ups that will not?

Basically, yes.

I realize that... re-read what I said. I said that the MU ratio isn't important, so why would you start talking about counters and ****? Lol

Becuase what your saying is to help the MU's

If people have counters, MU's don't need to be helped.

So, if you support a tilt limit in an optimal world for that match-up, you would also accept every single change I could suggest that would be equally or less drastic than that one? Glad we got that out of the way.

Tell me when you're doing writing your rule-book.

See: Unrealistic

>Tell me when you're done writing your rule-book.



Can you concisely tell me your philosophy then? If you have to tell people over and over they just aren't getting it, that isn't out fault, lol.

And I don't support any of them.

Just because something is already broken, doesn't mean we need to break it further for the sake of it.

I made a topic about how "if we are making ledge-grab limits and stuff, we might as well do x, y and z too!", I didn't mean it seriously however, I was using it to point out how silly our pre-existing rules are.

So I guess I should be thanking you, now everyone can see how ******** our game would be if we followed the LGL to its logical conclusion.

No, the interaction part doesn't make sense,

I'm done with this.

Everyone else: Have fun arguing with Jebus the 2nd.
Jebus the 2nd: >_>

I really don't appreciate you being derogatory. It's not like I'm not being logical.

The interaction part makes sense because a tilt limit limits the options you have when you and jiggly are in a neutral state, or you are on the ground jiggly is anywhere. These are both times where both players interact.

A regrab limit limits the options one player has when one player is in a semi-neutral state(middle of a grab/just finished) and another player is in a helpless state (stun)

This does not limit an interaction, because at this point you might as well be playing vs a cpu, it is PvE.

Except all your ideas are pushing the game in a negative direction, and ruining any drive for improvement.
How do people improve? By finding new strategies that take less risk and give more reward, to get an edge over their opponent.
Your goal in this "optimal world" is to deny someone any form of an advantage they obtain.

Do you even read what I say?

Characters countering others is OK. Not all advantages would be removed, which is exactly what im saying to Grim Tuesday at the same time.

There's no point in competing if you can't be better than the other competitors.

Host a tournament with that rule, see how many people go to it.
I can tell you hardly anyone would go, and those that would go would only go because they have no alternative for that day. (if you tried to host a tournament with that rule at the same time as another tournament or meet, and you weren't offering a large pot, nobody would go)

So what your saying is, finding out what you can do in the game is part of hte game?

I'lll see if I can get a tournament hosted with that rule....

Also, being lucky enough to have a character with a broken tactic/finding that tactic is outweighed by the need for proper competition.

Of course Status Quo vs Non will lose if they're on the same day. That's basic psychology. Doesn't prove anything.

This confuses me.
So Lucario mains aren't smart enough to know whether their character would be buffed or not?
His aura boost really doesn't help him, aura is often a liability because if he dies first he loses all his kill power.

100 people with the skill level of you or me say something.

1 person with the skill level of Ally says something.

Until logical debate starts, the person with ally's skill level is right.

Well I mean, it's not only with D3, but his is the most obvious.
His requires pummelling after every grab once it's staled enough. This gives you time to mash out obviously. So it's escapable. Idk the percentage the fastest masher could mash out at, but likely over 200%. TAS could mash out at 999%
Since most people couldn't do this, where do you set the limit? Do you set it differently depending on the opponent? (ridiculous I hope you'll agree)
Extending this to other characters, if someone regrabs 3 times then pummels, that's technically giving someone the ability to mash out, making the chain-grab escapable, so they could just re-grab 3 times, pummel, then re-grab 3 times again, and your rule would allow that.

I would be willing to do large amounts of research on this before implementing the rule, assuming the rest of it was accepted.

 

[Zankoku]

Basically, yes.

Okay, so apparently I hit on basically what you're trying to do. Now tell me exactly what you're trying to do.

Of course Status Quo vs Non will lose if they're on the same day. That's basic psychology. Doesn't prove anything.

Explain why tournaments with Meta Knight banned before URC's announcement had significantly more attendance. Explain how the stage list ended up getting shaped so harshly by public opinion when the prior "status quo" had been to use a much larger stage list.

If people have counters, MU's don't need to be helped.

Short of Meta Knight, whose advantages have nothing to do with consecutive grabs, every character has disadvantaged match-ups of varying degrees of severity.

 

[Hive]

I've seen tournaments with grab limits (usually 5) or a rule that states that ddd needs to dash between grabs (or even just no DDD infinites- really everyone knows what that means if they aren't trying to twist it). They do just fine on attendance. I believe Hobo usto do something along these lines actually before it was unity. Genesis 1 was going to ban DDDs infinites until the very morning of the tourney too- clearly did not stop ppl from attending.
Grab limits are nothing new, if the argument is implementation or attendence I would say historically they have shown to have no significant negative effects. DDDs aren't going to stop going, skilled DDDs will still be winning against almost all the infinite (or near infinite) prone characters anyways. An argument against a ban needs to be more about gameplay mechanics, etc... the implementation argument just can't really stand anymore given historical evidence showing time and again it turns out fine.

 

[ElDominio]

I've seen tournaments with grab limits (usually 5) or a rule that states that ddd needs to dash between grabs (or even just no DDD infinites- really everyone knows what that means if they aren't trying to twist it). They do just fine on attendance. I believe Hobo usto do something along these lines actually before it was unity. Genesis 1 was going to ban DDDs infinites until the very morning of the tourney too- clearly did not stop ppl from attending.
Grab limits are nothing new, if the argument is implementation or attendence I would say historically they have shown to have no significant negative effects. DDDs aren't going to stop going, skilled DDDs will still be winning against almost all the infinite (or near infinite) prone characters anyways. An argument against a ban needs to be more about gameplay mechanics, etc... the implementation argument just can't really stand anymore given historical evidence showing time and again it turns out fine.

 

[Hive]

Poor guy watching :/ that's not really the angle you want to be viewing at as the pants burn away.

 

[Arcansi]

Okay, so apparently I hit on basically what you're trying to do. Now tell me exactly what you're trying to do.

That's pretty much exactly the way I want it to be. I don't usually preemptively deal with conflicts, I deal with them when they come up. Hence the thread.

Explain why tournaments with Meta Knight banned before URC's announcement had significantly more attendance. Explain how the stage list ended up getting shaped so harshly by public opinion when the prior "status quo" had been to use a much larger stage list.

Status quo isn't always accepted. When I argue, it usually is on something that's accepted.

Status quo is quite often accepted.

Short of Meta Knight, whose advantages have nothing to do with consecutive grabs, every character has disadvantaged match-ups of varying degrees of severity.

What I mean is we don't need to limit a matchup just because its a counter.

This is not what I'm doing.