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

[Alphicans]

No ruleset change ever made has ever been or will ever be "necessary" it is always a subjective determination of how we want the game to be, balancing the benefits versus the costs of that decision in relation to the alternatives. It is fully possible to play with items, idc, and all those things previously removed,
but we don't....
not because such an objective law exists that governs how we play, but as always, irrevocably, at heart it is about what is "more fun" in a game for us, the community, to have. This may seem too simplistic, but all games at heart are about enjoyment in one form or another- maybe from the story, or the gameplay, or fun from accomplishing something... etc.. I do however believe that in a competitive scene we can assume that meaningful comparisons of skill between players are a beneficial thing to uphold. What I'm saying though is we shouldn't allow things that make our gameplay experience worse than an alternative of not banning them because they do not meet some arbitrary threshold, this goes against the very essence of decision theory, we should try to make the game the best it can be. Degeneration into 1 tactic can mean too many different things: even the B button overcentralizes gameplay around itself, so where are we drawing the line? I think its important to realize that its not really about what is necessary, but about what is better.

Almost by definition, degenerative gameplay goes against the definition of competitive, so I'd argue that, yes, these changes were necessary in order to keep the competitive integrity of the game.

 

[Hive]

Define better.
Just public opinion? So if >50% people vote for something then it should become a rule?

Just wondering what your criteria is.

There isn't going to be an objective definition for what is better, but in the case of the ruleset body that is supposedly representing a community of players, than yes this would be better for the community (in terms of gameplay/tournament enjoyment) at large as opposed to better from a personal point of view. This does not always mean >50% vote, just because most people agree on something doesn't necessarily mean that it would be better for the community if it were implemented, suppose 60% of people agreed that something might be better to remove- if it were removed the other 40% would quit and if not the 60% would be generally a little disappointed but would still play, its easy to see that even with a majority vote more harm than not would come from its implementation. I realize it does end up hard to define in order to make that decision, but necessarily so, even though what is better is somewhat subjective though I think in most cases we can end up finding a fairly clear answer on what people want in the game (for example, items most players can agree that having them gone is better for their gameplay experience).

@alphicans- Oh I do agree the changes you listed were degenerative, and that comparisons of skill between players that define competitive scenes should be upheld. I just don't like saying things are absolutely necessary when the basis is subjective, and while I do think the removal of some of the tactics listed was a good thing, I don't think the idea that it made gameplay revolve around 1 tactic is the whole story (since many things make gameplay revolve around itself but are good for complexity- jumping, b button, etc.. and many things we remove aren't because they make gameplay necessarily overcentralized (items, stages...))

 

[Alphicans]

Removing stages and items isn't really an argument though because they are options within the game. I'd argue they're not changes at all.

jumping and b button aren't centralizing because there are multiple tactics that revolve around doing such things. They aren't comparable to MK planking the ledge because that is one single tactic while using the b button and jumping encompasses much more of the game, and tests numerous amounts of skills.

Also I am not so sure if it is subjective. As I said, competitive and degenerative are essentially opposites of each other, so to have both in a game is self contradictory and is an absurdity. Luckily for my side of the argument, CGs are not over centralizing. Even infinite CGs aren't (like DDD vs DK), because there is always the option to switch characters. In the case of MK planking the ledge, the option is to switch characters to MK, and attempt to get the first hit in and then plank the rest of the match. I don't think I need to explain why that is an issue.

 

[C.J.]

I just read this and it seemed relevant:
http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/25/5-reasons-why-you-shouldn’t-worry-about-balance/

 

[Arcansi]

@Arcansi: Dude, Ness and Lucas still get messed up without infinites...it's not like if the infinite was illegal the Marth match up would be any better in the long run. That's just one example for you, I suppose.

Oh I know. But atleast the game would be more balanced.

I am not sure if I understand "1." but I'll attempt to answer based on what I think you mean.

Would you like me to start defining words as I go. I'm doing my best to be understandable and yet... No Offence.

We change things that are absolutely necessary. What we have deemed absolutely necessary are things that cause the game to degenerate into one single tactic.

Stages, Timer, items on/off.

Please explain these changes.

It will cause disputes. Someone regrabs 4 times, the person is gonna wanna abuse the rule to the greatest length possible. Also the concept is arbitrary btw, although that's not very important.

This already applies to our current ruleset in the form of a grab past 300% to stall out the timer more.

FOW doesn't really give a **** about any of that and is against the Meta Knight ban. So, yes, he's okay with it.

Okay, you can always expect outliers. Now onto the second part of my question...(the creators of the competitive standard)

That's not what I'm saying, you're incorrect, and the current ruleset doesn't support it.

Your going to need to explain yourself to even have a chance of being right.

We don't need to ban most situations either, or do we according to you? lol.

I'm not arguing for banning, thanks for laughing at me.

Just....think.
Marth grabs you and you're Lucas, you know you're going to keep getting grabbed...unless you have a reaction time of like, 10+ seconds, you're going to be mashing out as fast as possible for every grab after that, taking the least amount of damage possible (like 1% per grab kinda thing, as the pummel stales).
If you're Samus against D3, you have plenty of time to start mashing, and get out of the "infinite", again unless your reaction time is terrible (how are you even playing the game at that point?)

I understand this. But do you understand that mashing out and getting regrabbed is actually bad unless you have a stock advantage? I mean, your going to have higher damage and less stock eventually in the grab, so the timer being lower can't be a good thing by any means.

There are 'infinites' that are easy to get out of, yes. Are you saying they shouldn't be covered by the rule?

Almost by definition, degenerative gameplay goes against the definition of competitive, so I'd argue that, yes, these changes were necessary in order to keep the competitive integrity of the game.

Do I need to define YOUR words as I go, too? There is a large discrepancy in your statement with the use of Almost & Necessary.

Removing stages and items isn't really an argument though because they are options within the game. I'd argue they're not changes at all.

You really didn't understand #1. Okay.

You see, (HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS!?!?!) we are not playing brawl anymore.

Our own ruleset has our own rules in it and it is our own game. vbrawl is just a term for brawl sans hacks.

Any change to the ruleset is a change to the game itself, because the ruleset makes the game itself what it is.

jumping and b button aren't centralizing because there are multiple tactics that revolve around doing such things. They aren't comparable to MK planking the ledge because that is one single tactic while using the b button and jumping encompasses much more of the game, and tests numerous amounts of skills.

So what your saying is that jumping comprises of testing multiple skills but the ability to both consistently do one action while predicting and reacting to your opponent while very unsafe (so easy to get stagespiked) doesn't?

Also I am not so sure if it is subjective. As I said, competitive and degenerative are essentially opposites of each other, so to have both in a game is self contradictory and is an absurdity. Luckily for my side of the argument, CGs are not over centralizing. Even infinite CGs aren't (like DDD vs DK), because there is always the option to switch characters. In the case of MK planking the ledge, the option is to switch characters to MK, and attempt to get the first hit in and then plank the rest of the match. I don't think I need to explain why that is an issue.

CG's degenerate HARD within a matchup. And matchups matter to the competitive scene, or else LGL wouldn't degenerate at all. (Just switch to Pit/someone else who can harass from the other side of the stage while anyone is planking.)

I just read this and it seemed relevant:
http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/25/5-reasons-why-you-shouldn’t-worry-about-balance/

Cool Article.

 

[Zankoku]

Stages, Timer, items on/off.

Please explain these changes.

Stages are mostly chosen to provide for competitive play that minimizes the possibility to win due to randomness and "luck", as it were. Other stages, along with turning off items, are majority preference of the competitive community. Timer is set by necessity - to prevent matches from taking so long that a tournament does not end in time.

You see, (HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS!?!?!) we are not playing brawl anymore.

Our own ruleset has our own rules in it and it is our own game. vbrawl is just a term for brawl sans hacks.

Any change to the ruleset is a change to the game itself, because the ruleset makes the game itself what it is.

This is an absurd argument, made to justify "if we've already done all this, then there's no problem doing even more". If the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, were by the strictest definition only the game on its own, then yes, we're no longer playing "2 minute timer up-to-four-player free for all anybody-may-select-stage" Brawl. While rules such as determining the victor as a replacement to Sudden Death, stage selection process, and oddities such as the LGL declare winners in opposition to the game's decisions, this is, as you said, not modifying the game in any way, just how we play it. A lot of decisions on the way we play the game have become standard through preference and tradition. Many other changes have happened and been adopted for similar reasons. We used to have a random stage for the first round. Now we strike. Items were used as standard in certain areas, for a time, in competitive Melee. Now they aren't, in Melee or Brawl.

Indeed, we pick and choose rules based on a combination of what we believe would be best for competition, what would require the least paperwork and gameplay restrictions, and what most players would prefer. I'm still curious as to what you're trying to promote your suggested changes with... Improving competitive play is an unproven claim at best, and it comes at the very real cost of additional rules complexity; not to mention there being a heavy majority of the competitive Smash community against your proposals.

CG's degenerate HARD within a matchup. And matchups matter to the competitive scene, or else LGL wouldn't degenerate at all. (Just switch to Pit/someone else who can harass from the other side of the stage while anyone is planking.)

LGL is a match-up independent tactic. Chaingrabs, for the most part, are match-up dependent. The reason why people who are for an LGL are for it is because they are concerned that camping the ledge will become a universal tactic that wins enough to become centralized around doing so. You can't really say that Dedede will chain-grab regardless of match-up, nor can you claim that play is or reasonably will become centralized around selecting Dedede against any character that can be chaingrabbed by him.

Thus, making a link between LGL and chaingrabs is rather tenuous.

I don't believe Pit has quite the angle to be able to punish ledge-camping from the other side of the stage...

 

[Arcansi]

Stages are mostly chosen to provide for competitive play that minimizes the possibility to win due to randomness and "luck", as it were. Other stages, along with turning off items, are majority preference of the competitive community. Timer is set by necessity - to prevent matches from taking so long that a tournament does not end in time.

So your saying Alphicans is wrong?

This is an absurd argument, made to justify "if we've already done all this, then there's no problem doing even more". If the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, were by the strictest definition only the game on its own, then yes, we're no longer playing "2 minute timer up-to-four-player free for all anybody-may-select-stage" Brawl. While rules such as determining the victor as a replacement to Sudden Death, stage selection process, and oddities such as the LGL declare winners in opposition to the game's decisions, this is, as you said, not modifying the game in any way, just how we play it. A lot of decisions on the way we play the game have become standard through preference and tradition. Many other changes have happened and been adopted for similar reasons. We used to have a random stage for the first round. Now we strike. Items were used as standard in certain areas, for a time, in competitive Melee. Now they aren't, in Melee or Brawl.

1. As long as it balances the game with certain usability limitations, there should be no problem doing more.

2. You go on to disprove yourself with 'the strictest definitions'.

3. You miss the part where I say that modifying the way we play the game is modifying the game itself.

4. Okay.

Indeed, we pick and choose rules based on a combination of what we believe would be best for competition, what would require the least paperwork and gameplay restrictions, and what most players would prefer. I'm still curious as to what you're trying to promote your suggested changes with... Improving competitive play is an unproven claim at best, and it comes at the very real cost of additional rules complexity; not to mention there being a heavy majority of the competitive Smash community against your proposals.

1. What is this combination?

2. The fact that it balances the game further.

NOTE: Why did you bold against? Are you unaware of argumentum ad populum?

LGL is a match-up independent tactic. Chaingrabs, for the most part, are match-up dependent. The reason why people who are for an LGL are for it is because they are concerned that camping the ledge will become a universal tactic that wins enough to become centralized around doing so. You can't really say that Dedede will chain-grab regardless of match-up, nor can you claim that play is or reasonably will become centralized around selecting Dedede against any character that can be chaingrabbed by him.

Thus, making a link between LGL and chaingrabs is rather tenuous.

See Below.

I don't believe Pit has quite the angle to be able to punish ledge-camping from the other side of the stage...

Arrow Looping.

 

[The Iron Wolf]

I just read this and it seemed relevant:
http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/25/5-reasons-why-you-shouldn’t-worry-about-balance/

This is a very enlightening article I must say.


The idealist in me wishes Dedede didn't have that braindead chain grab of his legalized, and that Pikachu did not have that 0 death chain grab on Spacies(It affects my main) but it's not really hindering the general metagame. It's extremely irritating, but the player must realize that they are utilizing a character of their own choice, when they could have easily vouched to pick a more viable option. In my case it's my responsibility to pick up a character that can counter pick the Dedede or Pikachu.

Just my two cents.

 

[Ghostbone]

Your going to need to explain yourself to even have a chance of being right.

I'm providing just as much justification as you are. So do you have no chance of being right as well? Cool.

I'm not arguing for banning, thanks for laughing at me.

Limiting is even worse than banning lol, but whatever, hide behind semantics and think that you're right....

I understand this. But do you understand that mashing out and getting regrabbed is actually bad unless you have a stock advantage? I mean, your going to have higher damage and less stock eventually in the grab, so the timer being lower can't be a good thing by any means.

Ummm, what? That makes no sense.
You're going to have more damage anyway all the time, so I guess you should just jump into your opponents attacks so you die quicker right? But wait, the best way to survive is to take the least amount of damage possible, which is what mashing will allow you to do.

There are 'infinites' that are easy to get out of, yes. Are you saying they shouldn't be covered by the rule?

Not quite sure what you mean by this, but if you're asking whether I think that something is escapable shouldn't be limited...then the answer is yes, banning/limiting something that can be escaped is ********.

 

[Zankoku]

You miss the part where I say that modifying the way we play the game is modifying the game itself.

In that case, every single game that is played competitively has been modified. This being an issue because the qualifier of "modified" then becomes absolutely meaningless.

The fact that it balances the game further.

How is this a fact? I and several others have noted it is, at best, a theoretical claim. The changes you hypothesize are isolated, and you have no experimental data to back it up. So, again, it is an unproven claim that comes at the cost of rules complexity.

NOTE: Why did you bold against? Are you unaware of argumentum ad populum?

NOTE: My argument is not claiming anything to be true, as the argumentum ad populum you keep throwing out to people who mention majority favor covers, but rather finding that you are lacking in support in any category - even that of popular support. With that in mind, you probably should work on your persuasive speaking skills, as otherwise you're left with nothing proven and nobody to try to prove it to.

Also, arrow looping does not have the precision nor easily variable timing that you'd want in order to catch someone who's ledge-camping.

 

[Ghostbone]

Also, arrow looping does not have the precision nor easily variable timing that you'd want in order to catch someone who's ledge-camping.

You could theoretically just get 4 arrows and space them out perfectly to frame trap the person at the ledge.

 

[Alphicans]

I'll respond.

second quote: I explained that later in the thread, I don't know why you'd bring it up twice...

third quote: I respect this answer, but the 300% rule has been deemed necessary to keep the integrity of "competition." The 4 regrab rule is not only easier to break, it is also unnecessary.

Fourth quote: I only used almost because two different words can't be exactly the same... If one word is the exact opposite of the other then yes, they both can't exist in the same scenario. One of them must go. Don't get hung over small details like this.

Fifth quote: Don't act like I haven't encountered this argument 10000000 times before on smashboards. It's not new, and I don't feel it has any value. In fact, I've already explained why it's not an issue. The goal to play smash is to play it as close to the original game as possible, and only make surgical changes if absolutely necessary to keep competitive integrity. The surgical changes you see to the ruleset are actually quite minimal. Stages, timer, no items, stage striking are all non-surgical changes that I do not consider changes to the game at all.

sixth quote: MKs planking is not unsafe at all. MKs lgl is the only thing that should be banned, and with him gone there should be no LGL. I really hope the URC decides on this, but it doesn't seem likely because the majority of people dislike it. Remember I am not committing the bandwagon fallacy because I am not claiming they are right in saying it should be banned, just that because the majority like it, that's just how it will end up.

seventh quote: it degenerates within a match-up, but not within in the game. The option to CP a character still exists. I thought I went over this already... Why are you arguing in circles?

 

[Arcansi]

I'm providing just as much justification as you are. So do you have no chance of being right as well? Cool.

I had to go back to my original post because of this, and I was actually wrong on this. I

What I should've said was 'No, we should limit it because it helps the game even though there is tech to deal with it. Kinda like ledge grabbing over and over.'

Limiting is even worse than banning lol, but whatever, hide behind semantics and think that you're right....

Are you aware of how a debate works? Until you can logically prove that I'm wrong, I am right.

Ummm, what? That makes no sense.
You're going to have more damage anyway all the time, so I guess you should just jump into your opponents attacks so you die quicker right? But wait, the best way to survive is to take the least amount of damage possible, which is what mashing will allow you to do.

You are not 100% guaranteed to get more damage as soon as the game starts.

You are if you are in an inescapable grab chain. All mashing does is make your trip to 300% longer, which stalls the game more, giving you less time to make a comeback before you auto-lose.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, but if you're asking whether I think that something is escapable shouldn't be limited...then the answer is yes, banning/limiting something that can be escaped is ********.

So you mean like LGL? Because the concept of 'I'm ahead and I don't need to approach and you can never win' is most certainly escapable.

In that case, every single game that is played competitively has been modified. This being an issue because the qualifier of "modified" then becomes absolutely meaningless.

So a qualifier you use is meaningless. I don't understand why this is my problem.

How is this a fact? I and several others have noted it is, at best, a theoretical claim. The changes you hypothesize are isolated, and you have no experimental data to back it up. So, again, it is an unproven claim that comes at the cost of rules complexity.

It balances by removing over-centralization within matchups. Is this not balance similar to removing metaknight from the game to remove over-centralization within matchups (see: all the ones that include MK)?

NOTE: My argument is not claiming anything to be true, as the argumentum ad populum you keep throwing out to people who mention majority favor covers, but rather finding that you are lacking in support in any category - even that of popular support. With that in mind, you probably should work on your persuasive speaking skills, as otherwise you're left with nothing proven and nobody to try to prove it to.

If I had support all it would mean is that maybe I had chose something I expected to get it on, or maybe people like Hive exist. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, just throws some percents up and down which have no real relevance in the end unless your trying to predict the winner like a bet on a horse race.

Also, arrow looping does not have the precision nor easily variable timing that you'd want in order to catch someone who's ledge-camping.

Of course it doesn't. Especially not when I can loop 10 arrows and just make it rain on them so easily that they will take damage no matter what.

Or I can actually know how to arrow loop and have 100% accuracy because that's all I have to focus on.

third quote: I respect this answer, but the 300% rule has been deemed necessary to keep the integrity of "competition." The 4 regrab rule is not only easier to break, it is also unnecessary.

The 4 regrab rule is not any easier or harder to break then the 300% grab rule. Becuase all both take is pretty much the same stupid action. Doing your combo one too many times.

Fourth quote: I only used almost because two different words can't be exactly the same... If one word is the exact opposite of the other then yes, they both can't exist in the same scenario. One of them must go. Don't get hung over small details like this.

'Almost' and 'Necessary' create a LARGE discrepancy because if something is almost necessary then it is not necessary, and should not be portrayed as such. Understand?

Fifth quote: Don't act like I haven't encountered this argument 10000000 times before on smashboards. It's not new, and I don't feel it has any value. In fact, I've already explained why it's not an issue. The goal to play smash is to play it as close to the original game as possible, and only make surgical changes if absolutely necessary to keep competitive integrity. The surgical changes you see to the ruleset are actually quite minimal. Stages, timer, no items, stage striking are all non-surgical changes that I do not consider changes to the game at all.

I do not consider = Opinion, and as such (as you should well know) holds no weight at all.

The goal to play smash should be to play it as balanced as possible, without making it anti-fun on the players.

This should be the goal of any competitive ruleset, by definition.

And our ruleset is competitive, so...

sixth quote: MKs planking is not unsafe at all. MKs lgl is the only thing that should be banned, and with him gone there should be no LGL. I really hope the URC decides on this, but it doesn't seem likely because the majority of people dislike it. Remember I am not committing the bandwagon fallacy because I am not claiming they are right in saying it should be banned, just that because the majority like it, that's just how it will end up.

MKs planking is completly safe if I'm arrow looping, your right.

Except your not, in truth.

seventh quote: it degenerates within a match-up, but not within in the game. The option to CP a character still exists. I thought I went over this already... Why are you arguing in circles?

For it to degenerate within a matchup it has to degenerate within the game because being in the matchup is simply a quality of being in the game, therefore it is degenerating within the game.

It's a logical equivalent.

 

[DeLux]

Pit mains, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that there was a finite cap that exists outside of the blast zone that prevents arrow looping past a certain extent, thus making "raining 10 arrows" and/or arrow looping to effectively counter ledge camping as impossible.

 

[-LzR-]

At least 4 arrows is the limit.

 

[DeLux]

Oh, did you have a link to testing?

I haven't looked into it personally since it's something so obscure tbh, but I was under the impression that the size of the stage (ie. blast zone area) mattered to an extent. It might be misinformation though from someone based on anecdotal evidence

 

[Arcansi]

I know you can get four. On the pit boards from what I've seen there is no note of a limit but this likely hasn't been tested so far as how unlikely it is.

I don't see how blast zone radius would matter at all. It would seemingly have to be a property of the arrows to die if X are on the field and it is the oldest one. Assuming you loop properly and none fly out of the blast zone.

Note that I am a pit main.

 

[DeLux]

So there is a blast zone cap for arrows?

 

[Zankoku]

So a qualifier you use is meaningless. I don't understand why this is my problem.

This is your problem because responding to everyone else with "it's not my problem" is not getting anybody any closer to your supposed goal of having anybody actually use the rules you are proposing. That is your goal, right? Or are you just here to tell us how wrong all of us are without actually convincing us to do anything?

It balances by removing over-centralization within matchups. Is this not balance similar to removing metaknight from the game to remove over-centralization within matchups (see: all the ones that include MK)?

I don't think removing Meta Knight was dealing with over-centralizing within match-ups - rather, Meta Knight was allegedly removing the relevance of match-ups altogether. Let's cut the bull****, though, and have you use your own words to support your own stance. If a change you make will affect not just one, but multiple match-ups, what is the guarantee that this brings us any closer to complete balance? What is the guarantee that we've observed all the differences that have occurred?

If a change you make turns some of Falco's favorable match-ups even and some of his even match-ups unfavorable, that doesn't appear to be actually helping balance at all for Falco - instead, you're just making a good bunch of characters better against Falco. Meanwhile, character centralization and popularity deals with their relevance in the environment. For example, I could claim that if your change took effect, Falco would likely drop in usage, lessening his nerfed favorable match-ups' relevance and basically reducing diversity rather than bolstering it - a loss in, as far as I can tell, your goal of achieving greater diversity through greater balance.

If I had support all it would mean is that maybe I had chose something I expected to get it on, or maybe people like Hive exist. It doesn't prove or disprove anything, just throws some percents up and down which have no real relevance in the end unless your trying to predict the winner like a bet on a horse race.

You need a combination of solid arguments and strong support for anything to become adopted as standard. Since you ***** all the time about how irrelevant people would see your community if they did end up using your rules, I can only imagine that you're aiming higher than local usage. Thus far, your tone in argumentation hasn't drawn much support, and you've not made a move in terms of example to back up your theory with results.

Do you disagree with any of this? If so, let me know what you've done to actually help your cause, besides just telling a bunch of people here about being wrong and your definition of modification being meaningless being not your problem. If not, start gathering some data. Hell, you don't even necessarily need a full tournament - simple match-up data with a Falco main would be infinitely more empirical evidence than you've got now.

Of course it doesn't. Especially not when I can loop 10 arrows and just make it rain on them so easily that they will take damage no matter what.

Can you do this? Have you done this?

Or I can actually know how to arrow loop and have 100% accuracy because that's all I have to focus on.

Do it. This one doesn't even need another person - quick research has shown that, performing an easy variant of ledge-stalling, you will be vulnerable for a period of 10 frames before being able to re-grab the ledge with Donkey Kong. Show that you can aim an arrow that forces this action and then another arrow within the window of 47-56 frames later that punishes it. Since you're a Pit main, this should actually be quicker to get video proof of than usual. If you lack recording equipment, save the replay to an SD card and upload the files to megaupload or something.





At this point I really wish you'd replace at least some of that time you're spending posting up response after response with time you're spending doing something to back up your claims.

 

[DeLux]

Ankoku, I told him nearly the same thing more or less in the URC discussion thread

The victim card is going to be played I suspect.

 

[Arcansi]

Ankoku, I told him nearly the same thing more or less in the URC discussion thread

The victim card is going to be played I suspect.

Except yours was all either 1: simply not plausible in any way for me to do or 2: wouldn't change/cause anything if I did.

Do you think I'm trying to be a victim?

This is your problem because responding to everyone else with "it's not my problem" is not getting anybody any closer to your supposed goal of having anybody actually use the rules you are proposing. That is your goal, right? Or are you just here to tell us how wrong all of us are without actually convincing us to do anything?

Logically, shouldn't the fact that you (and your rules) are wrong be enough reason to change them already?

This is how I see it.

I don't think removing Meta Knight was dealing with over-centralizing within match-ups - rather, Meta Knight was allegedly removing the relevance of match-ups altogether. Let's cut the bull****, though, and have you use your own words to support your own stance. If a change you make will affect not just one, but multiple match-ups, what is the guarantee that this brings us any closer to complete balance? What is the guarantee that we've observed all the differences that have occurred?

The brawl community seems completely fine with leaving many matchups almost if not totally irrelevant already, (see: Ganondorfs, Zeldas, Jigglypuffs...etc).

Did metaknight simply make some medium tiers matchups irrelevant and then we crossed the 50% line so bandwagoning kicked in or something? I don't understand.

Note that CG's can almost remove the existance of matchups altogether. There's very little reason to play something like Ganon vs Falco at anything but the living room.

The garauntee can be easily predicted by looking at the matchups affected by CG's and then seeing their ratio's. Here, Let's take a look.

Yoshi on Wario
Pika on Bowser Falcon DK Falco Fox Ganon Ike DDD Link Sheik Snake Sonic Wolf ZSS
DDD on Everyone
Marth on Lucas
Falco on Everyone (35)
NOTE: These are only the ones that can go over the regrab limit of 3x. If I missed anything feel free to let me know.

(All matchup definitions are going by the official bbr matchup chart, fyi)
[COLLAPSE="tons of matchups"]

Yoshi v Wario = -1 Yoshi

PIKACHU

Bowser = +2 Pika

Falcon = +4 Pika

DK = +2 Pika

Falco = +3 Pika

Fox = +3 Pika

Ganon = +3 Pika

Ike = +1 Pika

DDD = +2 Pika

Link = +2 Pika

Sheik = +3 Pika

Snake = +1 Pika

Sonic = +1 Pika

Wolf = +3 Pika

ZSS = +1 Pika

Falco
(Note, just going to give numbers of how many of each because that's all that matters in the end. MK was not included in this due to him being basically banned atm)

Falco has 1 -3, 1 -2, 11 +/-0, 4 +1, 13 +2, 4 +3, 2+4.

Marth on Lucas = +3 Marth

DDD's #'s = 1 -3, 4 -2, 4 -1, 5 +/-0, 6 +1, 5 +2, 9 +3, 2 +4.
[/COLLAPSE]

Now, if we assume any given amount for a matchup change average from my rule, we can discern how much it would change our game given our current matchups.

So here goes. (Matchup changes are ALWAYS in favor of the character who is getting chaingrabbed. So +1 grabber goes to +/-0 if the average change is 1, etc.)


With an average matchup change of -1 we get a +33 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

(so 33 more matchups are made more balanced then are made more imbalanced)

With an average matchup change of -2 we get a +5 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

After this it becomes negative.

This would mean it would have to change the average matchup in terms of negative three, HEAVY disadvantage, for it to be a change that does not warrant balance overall.

Do you think it would do this?

If a change you make turns some of Falco's favorable match-ups even and some of his even match-ups unfavorable, that doesn't appear to be actually helping balance at all for Falco - instead, you're just making a good bunch of characters better against Falco. Meanwhile, character centralization and popularity deals with their relevance in the environment. For example, I could claim that if your change took effect, Falco would likely drop in usage, lessening his nerfed favorable match-ups' relevance and basically reducing diversity rather than bolstering it - a loss in, as far as I can tell, your goal of achieving greater diversity through greater balance.

I could claim a good amount of characters will go up because of chaingrabs being removed on them. Increasing character diversity by much more then just losing some falcos. (see: Lucas, DK, Samus...)

You need a combination of solid arguments and strong support for anything to become adopted as standard. Since you ***** all the time about how irrelevant people would see your community if they did end up using your rules, I can only imagine that you're aiming higher than local usage. Thus far, your tone in argumentation hasn't drawn much support, and you've not made a move in terms of example to back up your theory with results.

1. I have no idea how my tone is wrong, and even when asked people just aren't telling me.

2. As far as I can see, if nobody can oppose me they have no option but to be on my side.

3. Does the above statistics count as results? My locality is denying me the right to have logical discussion about most things that would constitute a rule change in any way shape or form, so not much I can do there(and DeLux tells me to talk to my local area. Yeah, of course.)

Do you disagree with any of this? If so, let me know what you've done to actually help your cause, besides just telling a bunch of people here about being wrong and your definition of modification being meaningless being not your problem. If not, start gathering some data. Hell, you don't even necessarily need a full tournament - simple match-up data with a Falco main would be infinitely more empirical evidence than you've got now.

Does the above count as data? I'm currently unable to get tournament data due to things outside my control, which is my greatest burden.

Can you do this? Have you done this?

I have a friend who quit brawl once he found out Yoshi had an unescapable chaingrab on wario.

Other then this, very few people I know play characters that are greatly affected, but I might as well get into contact with the ones that do.

Do it. This one doesn't even need another person - quick research has shown that, performing an easy variant of ledge-stalling, you will be vulnerable for a period of 10 frames before being able to re-grab the ledge with Donkey Kong. Show that you can aim an arrow that forces this action and then another arrow within the window of 47-56 frames later that punishes it. Since you're a Pit main, this should actually be quicker to get video proof of than usual. If you lack recording equipment, save the replay to an SD card and upload the files to megaupload or something.

My SD card is broken (well, some combination of the SD card + my USB adapter)

I will do this and see if there is any way I can get it online.

At this point I really wish you'd replace at least some of that time you're spending posting up response after response with time you're spending doing something to back up your claims.

If logically nobody can stand against me, they must stand for me.

In this way, responses are backing up my claims.

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi, you beg the question and pull strawman arguments out sooo much, yet you call yourself logical? These are serious logical fallacies >_>.

Me saying I do not consider timer etc. a change, is not an opinion. It's a correct statement. Why is that? Because they are changes the game allows us to do. There is no "real" way to play brawl because sakurai has given us many in game options, so as long as you're only making changes with the tools he has given us, you are not changing the game. Period. Don't throw up some strawman and say because I said "I do not consider" as an argument it holds no weight, because it's a way to get around something that holds a lot of weight. But whatever, this point wasn't huge anyways.

Next... You begged the question twice in response to asight, well once for sure, and maybe halfsies after.

"Logically, shouldn't the fact that you (and your rules) are wrong be enough reason to change them already?

This is how I see it."

WOW! See what you did here? Claimed our rules are wrong without any proof. What's even funnier is you started the sentence off with "logically," when it couldn't be further from sound logic.

Moving on, your whole imbalance ratio business. You're assuming that removing cgs functions like this. It doesn't. If falco wasn't allowed to cg 4 or more times, he'd still **** all the people he does. He is not a top tier character for his cg. Even if you banned falco's cg, he'd still **** bowser, DDD, ganon, DK etc, because he still has followups from dthrow and lasers + more. So what you're doing is making his +3 or +2 match-ups SLIGHTLY easier for the low tier characters, and making match-ups where he really needs all the tricks he can get (vs diddy and snake for example) much harder. I do not take this section as compelling evidence at all, and you're essentially begging the question again which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Zankoku]

Logically, shouldn't the fact that you (and your rules) are wrong be enough reason to change them already?

This is how I see it.

Logically, you yourself making the claim that we and our rules are wrong is not equivalent to presenting an actual fact.

The brawl community seems completely fine with leaving many matchups almost if not totally irrelevant already, (see: Ganondorfs, Zeldas, Jigglypuffs...etc).

Did metaknight simply make some medium tiers matchups irrelevant and then we crossed the 50% line so bandwagoning kicked in or something? I don't understand.

I'm going to lead by saying that asking me to defend Meta Knight's ban is probably not going to go anywhere.

Meta Knight's ban, if you really want to get down to it, was enacted by popular vote. There are all sorts of things that influenced that action to be popular, but you're approaching the match-up factor in the wrong way. Meta Knight was not under scrutiny for having a lot of favorable match-ups so much as he was for having absolutely no unfavorable ones, with none of the rest of the cast being able to claim the same.

Note that CG's can almost remove the existance of matchups altogether. There's very little reason to play something like Ganon vs Falco at anything but the living room.

That is the result of using a low tier. Ganondorf vs Falco is not an absolutely garbage match-up simply because Falco can chaingrab Ganondorf. In fact, in this match-up's case, the chain-grab could simply be looked at as adding insult to injury.

The garauntee can be easily predicted by looking at the matchups affected by CG's and then seeing their ratio's. Here, Let's take a look.

Yoshi on Wario
Pika on Bowser Falcon DK Falco Fox Ganon Ike DDD Link Sheik Snake Sonic Wolf ZSS
DDD on Everyone
Marth on Lucas
Falco on Everyone (35)
NOTE: These are only the ones that can go over the regrab limit of 3x. If I missed anything feel free to let me know.

(All matchup definitions are going by the official bbr matchup chart, fyi)
[COLLAPSE="tons of matchups"]

Yoshi v Wario = -1 Yoshi

PIKACHU

Bowser = +2 Pika

Falcon = +4 Pika

DK = +2 Pika

Falco = +3 Pika

Fox = +3 Pika

Ganon = +3 Pika

Ike = +1 Pika

DDD = +2 Pika

Link = +2 Pika

Sheik = +3 Pika

Snake = +1 Pika

Sonic = +1 Pika

Wolf = +3 Pika

ZSS = +1 Pika

Falco
(Note, just going to give numbers of how many of each because that's all that matters in the end. MK was not included in this due to him being basically banned atm)

Falco has 1 -3, 1 -2, 11 +/-0, 4 +1, 13 +2, 4 +3, 2+4.

Marth on Lucas = +3 Marth

DDD's #'s = 1 -3, 4 -2, 4 -1, 5 +/-0, 6 +1, 5 +2, 9 +3, 2 +4.
[/COLLAPSE]

Now, if we assume any given amount for a matchup change average from my rule, we can discern how much it would change our game given our current matchups.

So here goes. (Matchup changes are ALWAYS in favor of the character who is getting chaingrabbed. So +1 grabber goes to +/-0 if the average change is 1, etc.)


With an average matchup change of -1 we get a +33 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

(so 33 more matchups are made more balanced then are made more imbalanced)

With an average matchup change of -2 we get a +5 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

After this it becomes negative.

This would mean it would have to change the average matchup in terms of negative three, HEAVY disadvantage, for it to be a change that does not warrant balance overall.

Do you think it would do this?

You've neglected my earlier statement that changing singular match-ups of characters that have issues to begin with is not going to help them, nor should said match-up changes be weighted equally. If Peach has a chaingrab on Captain Falcon (which she does, incidentally), banning the chaingrab does not put Peach at any more risk in the average tournament, nor does it make Captain Falcon any more common. Meanwhile, Falco losing favor against Snake would definitely change the tournament environment significantly, in addition to emphasizing the remaining high tiers - who might themselves have excellent match-ups against the characters you "helped" against Falco.

In short, this is why I hate simulating changes that can affect the entire world over theory.

I could claim a good amount of characters will go up because of chaingrabs being removed on them. Increasing character diversity by much more then just losing some falcos. (see: Lucas, DK, Samus...)

This is a claim that chain-grabs are all that are keeping said characters down. Back it up.

1. I have no idea how my tone is wrong, and even when asked people just aren't telling me.

To start with, you're approaching everybody with the attitude of, essentially, "you're wrong about everything", and then following up with a bunch of unproven claims that really can't be supported by logic alone (because logic does not translate well into predictions of the future).

You also use relatively examples that the people you're arguing with might not even agree with (LGL, Meta Knight's ban) and basically putting the burden of defending things they might not actually support on them.

Finally, you deflect any queries of solid evidence over theory and "logic" with excuses like "my local scene doesn't listen to me" and "even if I managed something you wouldn't pay attention".

This, again, isn't very persuasive to anyone, since you're being difficult to converse with, let alone debate with.

2. As far as I can see, if nobody can oppose me they have no option but to be on my side.

Actually, a lot of us are being rather generous in giving you the benefit of the doubt. If nobody can argue with you (not necessarily because you are correct), but you fail to persuade anybody to your side of these issues, then you have not succeeded in accomplishing anything. Saying "I'm right!" in your head does not change how the rest of the world will continue not using your rules.

Does the above count as data? I'm currently unable to get tournament data due to things outside my control, which is my greatest burden.

Data is data. Citing predictions is not.

I have a friend who quit brawl once he found out Yoshi had an unescapable chaingrab on wario.

Why are you changing the subject here? I asked if you're able to loop 10 arrows like you claimed and you start talking about Yoshi and Wario.

If logically nobody can stand against me, they must stand for me.

In this way, responses are backing up my claims.

Speaking pragmatically, declaring victory over an audience of none will not do anything for you except make you hate the whole community for not listening to you.

 

[sunshade]

I have not yet read through this thread (and honestly I don't plan to) but may I have a quick summary of what the general theory of this thread is?

If it is as the thread title indicates and this thread is infact proposing that "Infinites(A.K.A. low-risk high reward combos) be limited" then I will post a rebuttal to the statement however threads have a tendency of evolving over time and the topic matter with them and I don't desire to post an irrelevant statement beyond what I have already.

 

[Alphicans]

It has evolved to "cgs should be limited to 4 regrabs only."

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If you leave a 1-frame window for escape in your chaingrab, is it still a chaingrab?

 

[Alphicans]

I don't think anything comes out in 1 frame lol.

But that kind of brings up another point:

So I mentioned (as did asight) that falco's cg isn't the big reason why he ***** the characters he does. But pikachu does need his cg to **** the characters he does. So I pose the question, "does this rule really help?" You could argue that it does, but I am not convinced entirely. I'll grant that it makes pika vs fox better for fox, but the new strategy will be to cg 4 times, run away, wait for another opportunity and cg 4 times again, foot stool, qac lock and then fsmash for the same amount of damage or a kill. Apply this to falcon, sheik, wolf, and falco (no qac on falco). So even if I agreed with your philosophy on competitiveness and how brawl rulesets should be made, it's not clear at all this rule accomplishes anything, in fact, I'd say with high certainty that this rule would not change balance in the game at all. It's an unnecessary rule that could lead to stupid technicalities. You brought up the point that to cg over 300% and to cg over 4 grabs is basically the same thing, and I'd agree that strictly speaking about the actions themselves you're largely right, but the thing is that since there is a limit on how long you can cg, there is rarely the situation where cging to 300% and then killing your opponent is better than cging till like 150%. For that reason, I do not think the rules are comparable.

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't think anything comes out in 1 frame lol.

Only ZSS and Squirtle's jabs come out on frame 1 (though that's not very helpful since with most chain-grabs you're in the air), but some moves have invincibility on frame 1.

 

[C.J.]

Jiggly's rest is invincible 1-20. I think it hits frame 1.
Marth is invincible frame 1
Bowser is invincible frame 1

 

[Life]

Rest hits Frame 1 in Melee but Frame 2 in Brawl IIRC

 

[Grim Tuesday]

InCom is correct.

 

[Ussi]

If you leave a 1-frame window for escape in your chaingrab, is it still a chaingrab?

its possible to footstool i think

 

[Arcansi]

@ Grim:For all intents and purposes yes.

Unless the window is noticeable, it'll count under the rule.

Arcansi, you beg the question and pull strawman arguments out sooo much, yet you call yourself logical? These are serious logical fallacies >_>.

Okay, then just bring it up as such and I'll fix it for you.

Me saying I do not consider timer etc. a change, is not an opinion. It's a correct statement. Why is that? Because they are changes the game allows us to do. There is no "real" way to play brawl because sakurai has given us many in game options, so as long as you're only making changes with the tools he has given us, you are not changing the game. Period. Don't throw up some strawman and say because I said "I do not consider" as an argument it holds no weight, because it's a way to get around something that holds a lot of weight. But whatever, this point wasn't huge anyways.

We've already gone over you using consider, so w/e.

You seem to have missed my point on how changing the ruleset changes the game, so here we go.

Any change to the ruleset is a change to the game in itself because the game is a completely new entity once played under a different ruleset. In no way is a 99 stock flower mini fast fixed camera brawl with 2.5x damage/knockback and 1 minute timer in any way comparable to our current ruleset(neglecting things that couldn't be achieved inside the game).

Although they are both achievable with no outside influence, they represent changed rulesets, which means a different game in that it is not exactly the same, and therefore is different.

It is still brawl, just not the same brawl.

Next... You begged the question twice in response to asight, well once for sure, and maybe halfsies after.

Actually, you just missed my point.

"Logically, shouldn't the fact that you (and your rules) are wrong be enough reason to change them already?

This is how I see it."

WOW! See what you did here? Claimed our rules are wrong without any proof. What's even funnier is you started the sentence off with "logically," when it couldn't be further from sound logic.

You mean to say(because you nicely quoted out of context, thanks) that if I can present a point, and nobody can logically refute it, even after trying, it is not okay to say that they are wrong.

I am aware that this is not the situation. I never claimed so.

Moving on, your whole imbalance ratio business. You're assuming that removing cgs functions like this. It doesn't. If falco wasn't allowed to cg 4 or more times, he'd still **** all the people he does. He is not a top tier character for his cg. Even if you banned falco's cg, he'd still **** bowser, DDD, ganon, DK etc, because he still has followups from dthrow and lasers + more. So what you're doing is making his +3 or +2 match-ups SLIGHTLY easier for the low tier characters, and making match-ups where he really needs all the tricks he can get (vs diddy and snake for example) much harder. I do not take this section as compelling evidence at all, and you're essentially begging the question again which is a logical fallacy.

I'm assuming nothing, actually. The facts that I used when making the calculations are.

1: The rule will have an average matchup change across all matchups. It will.

2: It can be calculated how this average will change the matchups overall by putting it into all the matchups and calculating from this. This is also true.

You just go over something I am already aware of. This is why I took an average.
It doesn't disprove my point at all to tell me that it would change things and nerf falco in the long run.

You seem to be telling me 'No, you shouldn't nerf anyone!' But I can't logically see why when in the end greater balance is achieved.

Your extreme hyperbole is not appreciated, either. Being able to only regrab 3 times will not kill him in any way, just take some of his advantages away and force him to play slightly differently. It'll still mean he gets a ton of damage and a favourable(if not extremely favourable) position off of a grab.

Logically, you yourself making the claim that we and our rules are wrong is not equivalent to presenting an actual fact.

It is if you cannot defend your rules logically.

I'm going to lead by saying that asking me to defend Meta Knight's ban is probably not going to go anywhere.

Is this you telling me there is a possibility of you neglecting to refute my point and by doing such telling me I am correct?

Meta Knight's ban, if you really want to get down to it, was enacted by popular vote. There are all sorts of things that influenced that action to be popular, but you're approaching the match-up factor in the wrong way. Meta Knight was not under scrutiny for having a lot of favorable match-ups so much as he was for having absolutely no unfavorable ones, with none of the rest of the cast being able to claim the same.

They are quite close to each other, those two characteristics.

The only difference is that when he has no unfavorable matchups, he can have many 50/50 matchups and therefore be pretty balanced.

He doesn't, so metaknight fits my criteria by fitting yours. So what your saying is that I'm right, correct?

That is the result of using a low tier. Ganondorf vs Falco is not an absolutely garbage match-up simply because Falco can chaingrab Ganondorf. In fact, in this match-up's case, the chain-grab could simply be looked at as adding insult to injury.

This does not defend it's legality. The chain grab is a major issue because the ganon player has that one extra option that's always there that he has to watch out for. It may not look like much stacked on top of what he already has, but it is there and it is affecting him.

You've neglected my earlier statement that changing singular match-ups of characters that have issues to begin with is not going to help them, nor should said match-up changes be weighted equally. If Peach has a chaingrab on Captain Falcon (which she does, incidentally), banning the chaingrab does not put Peach at any more risk in the average tournament, nor does it make Captain Falcon any more common. Meanwhile, Falco losing favor against Snake would definitely change the tournament environment significantly, in addition to emphasizing the remaining high tiers - who might themselves have excellent match-ups against the characters you "helped" against Falco.

So what your saying is that the ruleset is catered to the ]current/U] high tiers and my rule should be too, in order to make sure it has the correct affect on a tournament scene?

Falco loses very little favour against snake with the change, by the way.

In short, this is why I hate simulating changes that can affect the entire world over theory.

The ability to see a not very vague idea of what would happen with the change due to the knowledge of what it would do and the characters options afterwards changes this.

This is a claim that chain-grabs are all that are keeping said characters down. Back it up.

No, it is a claim that the chain-grab is a big factor in their matchups, and that because of this people are not persuaded to play them at any level where they might see these chaingrabs. There may be other things holding them down, but that does not change my point.

Want proof? Go look at the character boards.

To start with, you're approaching everybody with the attitude of, essentially, "you're wrong about everything", and then following up with a bunch of unproven claims that really can't be supported by logic alone (because logic does not translate well into predictions of the future).

Which is why I don't deal with exacts, but things that can be logically proven. I can quite easily tell you falco losing the chaingrab will only make it a -2 at worst, and that's assuming WAY too much, to be honest. It will extremely likely make the matchup a -1 for falco.

Also, what proof would you like, then?

You also use relatively examples that the people you're arguing with might not even agree with (LGL, Meta Knight's ban) and basically putting the burden of defending things they might not actually support on them.

So people don't like me because they choose to defend a point they don't like?

How am I in the wrong here for using a logical point to my advantage? I'm not playing underhanded, I'm not blackmailing anyone or anything. They choose to defend the ruleset, they need to defend all of it. That's how rulesets work.

Finally, you deflect any queries of solid evidence over theory and "logic" with excuses like "my local scene doesn't listen to me" and "even if I managed something you wouldn't pay attention".

The only time I've used the latter was in respects to a large ruleset, and I know this would most likely be the case.

The former is simply true, from what I've experienced. I was told I would be getting solid data on something through a side event.

You wanna know what happened? Nothing. The event was neglected and I was never really told why except people didn't wanna do it (which was not the case on the forums the weeks before). I was simply neglected and still don't have the replays that did arise from the small amount that did happen of it (although that isn't something I'd harp on, it still sucks a lot.).

And then I suggested we test my rule. I was met with claims of 'IMO this rule is bad, please don't argue it arcansi'. and stuff like 'It's not happening Arcansi'.

If I would try to argue, I would just be told to stop because the general populace of my area simply dislikes me arguing for reasons that I am not aware of.

This, again, isn't very persuasive to anyone, since you're being difficult to converse with, let alone debate with.

I'm not attempting to, I just don't want to explain it like the above because you guys probably don't want to hear my sob stories.

Actually, a lot of us are being rather generous in giving you the benefit of the doubt. If nobody can argue with you (not necessarily because you are correct), but you fail to persuade anybody to your side of these issues, then you have not succeeded in accomplishing anything. Saying "I'm right!" in your head does not change how the rest of the world will continue not using your rules.

If nobody can tell me I am wrong, then I am right. If they neglect to tell me I am wrong for whatever reason, it is acceptable for me to assume I am right, as I have no reason not too.

And then I can bring it up to whoever the heck I want too, although I may end up looking like a bad person for it if I was to spam it everywhere or something.

Data is data. Citing predictions is not.

Those were numbers taken from an average. Now if we have the intelligence to know a couple things...

1: An average must exist in the overall matchup change imposed by the rule.

2: This average can be used to tell us the overall negative or positive change of the rule on all matchups put together by applying it to all the matchups.

Then we can see that my data is data.

Why are you changing the subject here? I asked if you're able to loop 10 arrows like you claimed and you start talking about Yoshi and Wario.

My bad, that was supposed to be in response to the quote above, that one being about actual words from X mains affected by the rule change would be better.

Although according to you it wouldn't as...

Data is data. Citing predictions is not.

.

So what data are you looking for?

Speaking pragmatically, declaring victory over an audience of none will not do anything for you except make you hate the whole community for not listening to you.

It's easy enough to get an audience if they won't come to me. (which they are right now so...)

So I mentioned (as did asight) that falco's cg isn't the big reason why he ***** the characters he does. But pikachu does need his cg to **** the characters he does. So I pose the question, "does this rule really help?" You could argue that it does, but I am not convinced entirely. I'll grant that it makes pika vs fox better for fox, but the new strategy will be to cg 4 times, run away, wait for another opportunity and cg 4 times again, foot stool, qac lock and then fsmash for the same amount of damage or a kill. Apply this to falcon, sheik, wolf, and falco (no qac on falco). So even if I agreed with your philosophy on competitiveness and how brawl rulesets should be made, it's not clear at all this rule accomplishes anything, in fact, I'd say with high certainty that this rule would not change balance in the game at all. It's an unnecessary rule that could lead to stupid technicalities. You brought up the point that to cg over 300% and to cg over 4 grabs is basically the same thing, and I'd agree that strictly speaking about the actions themselves you're largely right, but the thing is that since there is a limit on how long you can cg, there is rarely the situation where cging to 300% and then killing your opponent is better than cging till like 150%. For that reason, I do not think the rules are comparable.

So what your saying is that making pikachu grab once is the same as making him grab twice? This is extremely false.

Also, the rule helps immensely on standing infinites like Yoshi on Wario and DDD on DK.

What is this limit on how long you can Cg(if it isn't the 300% thing.) I can find no mention of it in the rules.

Also note that it is almost always to your advantage to cg to 300% and then kill as the timer being low is a bad thing for the player that is not in the lead. And usually once you gain that stock off of the CG you are in the lead.

 

[DeLux]

So now you're including not just guaranteed combos, but not guaranteed tactics as well?

At what point is it the player that's responsible for being punished by an opponent and not your perceived imbalance of the game?

 

[Arcansi]

So now you're including not just guaranteed combos, but not guaranteed tactics as well?

Planking isn't garaunteed. It's still limiited. This is even smaller of an issue.

At what point is it the player that's responsible for being punished by an opponent and not your perceived imbalance of the game?

At whatever point the LGL's is too.

This currently hasn't been crossed, quite obviously.

 

[Alphicans]

I don't think you read either of my larger quotes correctly. I shall sum up to make it easier.

In the case of falco, reducing the amount of regrabs does not help the low tiers AT ALL, and only hurts falco. I don't take your analysis of the match-ups to be correct. I main falco, and am likely 1st or 2nd best falco in Canada, I am not pulling this **** out of my ***, I know what I am talking about.

Also, please don't appeal to the character boards. Lots of people post on them, and not many of them are high or even mid level players. Don't take them too seriously, and if you wanna take them seriously you gotta know what you're looking for.

The pikachu example. I am not saying they equal each other, I am saying the match-ups don't change vs the characters he can CG, or at least change very minimally. In this example pika isn't nerfed and the low tiers aren't buffed, there is just a rule that adds unneeded complexity to the ruleset.

I'll continue and go to DDD. Here is where the rule has some balance merit to it. DK vs DDD becomes doable for DK. I think that's the only change though tbh. I still don't see any other character gaining much from this. So I guess your rule helps DK.

On to ICs. Similar to falco. The majority of the characters ICs completely dominates is not due to the cg at all. Ganon vs ICs? Even with the cg banned, ICs would body ganon so hard. This applies to pretty much all of low tier, and a ton of mid tier. Characters they absolutely need the cg like vs snake, marth, olimar, pikachu etc. they now lose at least -1, and in some cases -2 (imo of course).

So just to be clear, I am not gonna bother arguing with your philosophy because you seem to have convinced yourself the BoP is not on you, so you're assuming your position is correct with minimal evidence (this, by the way, is the definition of begging the question just so you know). Instead, I am analyzing what your rule accomplishes, and it does not appear to accomplish much at all.

 

[DeLux]

???

What does planking and the LGL have to do with anything involving the limitation of guaranteed vs. nonguaranateed combos?

The LGL applies only to time outs as it's designed to prevent stalling. Just as the Over 300% rule is designed to prevent stalling.

The limiting of guaranteed combos and not guaranteed tactics is designed to limit what? Advantage within Matchups?

The analogy doesn't fit

 

[Calvonta "Calvo" parker]

OOooh thatsalt.com

 

[sunshade]

Arcansi can you please say why an advantage gained via a chaingrab or some other simple to perform high damage tactic is unacceptable to competitive play?

Clearly it is not saturating the game as there only a hand full match-ups which are actually affected by note worthy chain grabs and even less that removing the chain-grab causes a major difference in.

Can you also say why we need to change the game's natural balance (or imbalance depending on your outlook) when there are many games which have survived the test of time with less characters and even more simple to perform high damage combos?

 

[| Big D |]

DDD is invincible.