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

[DeLux]

Getting a grab leading up to any followup is also situational, regardless of the punishment that comes after.

Getting any action on your opponent is situational.


Your logic isn't sound. The Wario example, along with all my other one's still stand. Please refute them or concede.

 

[Arcansi]

You haven't adequately refuted why you aren't limiting these non-CG/Combo related low risk/high reward tactics

So you are not logically sound and inconsistent

There is a line of low risk / high reward that some things (free stocks) cross, but others don't.

I see top level ICs drop grabs all the time, Coney has also mentioned he has trouble with the CG on some characters (second time I brought him up today inb4namesearch).

Tech skill is a skill or all the Diddies would be SNLing.

If we were talking about those things, this would matter. It goes on a case-by-case basis. Nobody at a high level drops the falco chaingrabs, for example.

After hundreds of posts, do you still not realize that no matter how much you argue there's no getting to Arcansi?

Just stop guys.

Thanks, Courier. I mean, I'm totally not logically responding to any of these posts, right?

Getting a grab leading up to any followup is also situational, regardless of the punishment that comes after.

Getting any action on your opponent is situational.

The situationality of the followup being a kill makes it so that it doesn't cross the line.

Your logic isn't sound. The Wario example, along with all my other one's still stand. Please refute them or concede.

How does the wario example still stand if my LGL argument addresses it?

 

[DeLux]

I already addressed how your LGL argument doesn't adequately address it.

You weren't able to logically refute that.

Therefore the argument still stands.


You just admitted that your logic is inconsistent by saying it must be done on a case by case basis. That should address both that your argument is invalid and unsound AND that being a situational low risk /high reward option that kills should be limited in your opinion. My Wario example stands which causes your argument to be incoherent thus collapsing in on itself or your argument is inconsistent which thus causes it to collapse in on yourself.

 

[Vinylic.]

I get the feeling that this will turn into a personal argument if this continues.

---
And:

Zero Suit Samus's Dsmash has this ability to freeze people upon contact. After which the ZSS has relatively 0 risk of being hit by the opponent since they are unable to act in this state. ZSS is heavily rewarded by this tactic. Often times this tactic is polarizing in some matchups.

This is pretty good. I should be more aware of that.

 

[Arcansi]

I already addressed how your LGL argument doesn't adequately address it.

You weren't able to logically refute that.

Therefore the argument still stands.

Intent doesn't matter. Effects do.

You wouldn't keep a rule that caused tournament attendance to go to 25%, even if this affect was twisting the rule away from intentions and going on unintended side effects, would you?

You just admitted that your logic is inconsistent by saying it must be done on a case by case basis. That should address both that your argument is invalid and unsound AND that being a situational low risk /high reward option that kills should be limited in your opinion.

Except I said that about determining wether tech-skill is automatically assumed to be irrelevant in an argument, which is something where you do do that.

Why you taking my words out of context?

I get the feeling that this will turn into a personal argument if this continues.

Why do SO MANY people come in this thread?

 

[DeLux]

Intent doesn't matter. Effects do.

Regardless, the existence of an LGL does not make my position inconsistent. If anything it strengthens my argument that your rule is arbitrarily inconsistent. It is simply limiting a polarizing edge game.

The existence of an LGL does not mean we should limit some polarizing low risk / high reward tactics and not others. Your argument still stands as immensely inconsistent and flawed.

You wouldn't keep a rule that caused tournament attendance to go \to 25%, even if this affect was twisting the rule away from intentions and going on unintended side effects, would you?

This is why I'm attempting to point out to you why we won't adopt your rules. It's statistically easier 3x easier to maintain current patronage in comparison to adding one unit of patronage by most commonly accepted marketing models. Your change of rules could possibly cause the scenario you just outlined based on that theory by alienating current players in favor of new players that are harder to recruit

Except I said that about determining wether tech-skill is automatically assumed to be irrelevant in an argument, which is something where you do do that.

Why you taking my words out of context?

You just told me intent doesn't matter, effects do. Therefore my argument still stands and your argument collapses in on itself.

Please prove me wrong or concede.

 

[Arcansi]

Regardless, the existence of an LGL does not make my position inconsistent. If anything it strengthens my argument that your rule is arbitrarily inconsistent. It is simply limiting a polarizing edge game.

The existence of an LGL does not mean we should limit some polarizing low risk / high reward tactics and not others. Your argument still stands as immensely inconsistent and flawed.

It is simply limiting a polarizing edge game

The existence of an LGL does not mean we should limit some polarizing low risk / high reward tactics and not others.

It may not mean you should, but it would seem based on what you have posted that it means you are.

This is why I'm attempting to point out to you why we won't adopt your rules. It's statistically easier 3x easier to maintain current patronage in comparison to adding one unit of patronage by most commonly accepted marketing models. Your change of rules could possibly cause the scenario you just outlined based on that theory by alienating current players in favor of new players that are harder to recruit

Burden of Proof.

You just told me intent doesn't matter, effects do. Therefore my argument still stands and your argument collapses in on itself.

Please prove me wrong or concede.

You are becoming logically incoherent, DeLux. I never said the argument we are talking about is judged on a case-by-case basis.

EDIT: So many people...so many lurkers.

 

[DeLux]

It may not mean you should, but it would seem based on what you have posted that it means you are.

No, I'm saying if we follow logic, we should limit all low risk / high reward tactics. YOU are the one limiting some and not all. That point was meaningless and didn't refute my argument. So my point still stands.

Burden of Proof.

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You are becoming logically incoherent, DeLux. I never said the argument we are talking about is judged on a case-by-case basis.

This point is meaningless and doesn't address that your argument in overwhelmingly inconsistent. You yourself indicated you want to limit certain tactics on a case by case basis. Case by Case basis is inconsistent. Your logic is unsound in your rules therefore they are bad. Prove me wrong or concede please

 

[Kantrip]

Diddy Kong's bananas give him a guaranteed smash attack that can result in a stock. I don't see Arcansi trying to limit banana follow-ups.

 

[DeLux]

Let the record show that I have demonstrated that Arcansi's Rules are inconsistent as they stand.

I went on to demonstrate that if made consistent, they make brawl incoherent.

I further demonstrated how they can't achieve the goal they set out to do because of the limitations of rulesets and not being able to mod the game.

 

[Arcansi]

No, I'm saying if we follow logic, we should limit all low risk / high reward tactics. YOU are the one limiting some and not all. That point was meaningless and didn't refute my argument. So my point still stands.

Okay. So, you DID say that the LGL limits a low risk high reward tactic that polarizes.

You also DID say this doesn't mean you should limit some but not all.

However, wouldn't this mean that you are doing such?

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I was referring to what my rule would do.

This point is meaningless and doesn't address that your argument in overwhelmingly inconsistent. You yourself indicated you want to limit certain tactics on a case by case basis. Case by Case basis is inconsistent. Your logic is unsound in your rules therefore they are bad. Prove me wrong or concede please

If I ever did say it (and I don't think i did, but is irrelevant), I concede that point.

Let the record show that I have demonstrated that Arcansi's Rules are inconsistent as they stand.

I went on to demonstrate that if made consistent, they make brawl incoherent.

I further demonstrated how they can't achieve the goal they set out to do because of the limitations of rulesets and not being able to mod the game.

Shouldn't you wait until I don't respond to post this?

I mean, if I posted this after every successful argument I posted...

Also, I just wanna say sup to Strong Bad.

Everyone is on DeLux's side... D:

 

[Strong Badam]

I think DeLux is winning

 

[DeLux]

Okay. So, you DID say that the LGL limits a low risk high reward tactic that polarizes.

You also DID say this doesn't mean you should limit some but not all.

However, wouldn't this mean that you are doing such?

This doesn't even make sense and doesn't refute that your rule is unsound because it's inconsistent. By making it consistent you make the game incoherent.

You must choose to be inconsistent or incoherent. Or you could choose to not alter the game.

I was referring to what my rule would do.

Compare the number of tournaments in the scene that run your specific rules against one's that don't.

If I ever did say it (and I don't think i did, but is irrelevant), I concede that point.

on that note, close the thread please

Shouldn't you wait until I don't respond to post this?

I mean, if I posted this after every successful argument I posted...

You just admitted my posts were successful. If they were successful, then you agree that your rule (while not all bad because I have already told you the purpose it could serve) should not be the adopted standard because that was my goal.

Thank you for being logical arcansi.

 

[Vinylic.]

Yeah, this isn't going to work out arcansi.

Although, I do hate ICs and their CGs, lol.

 

[Arcansi]

This doesn't even make sense and doesn't refute that your rule is unsound because it's inconsistent. By making it consistent you make the game incoherent.

EDIT: WAIT A SECOND. You are saying my rule is inconsistent because it doesn't affect all low risk/high reward situations, right?

Well, I have now remembered something. It's consistent because none of those have to do with grabs.

Yeah, that's what I'll go on.

You must choose to be inconsistent or incoherent. Or you could choose to not alter the game.

Or, I could make the rule better. This is what I currently plan to do.

Compare the number of tournaments in the scene that run your specific rules against one's that don't.

The reasoning for them doing this has nothing to do with wether my rule are bad or not.

People even said they would go to a tournament run with my rule if that's what Unity had on their ruleset.

on that note, close the thread please

Why?

Yeah, this isn't going to work out arcansi.

Why?

 

[Kantrip]

I'm on Strong Bad's side.

Someone asked earlier who's notable in our region.

Not many people, really. We're FreeC. British Freelumbia.

 

[Strong Badam]

I'm on Kantrip's side.

 

[DeLux]

*facepalm*

Arcansi, more than just grabs are low risk / high reward situations. It doesn't help the situation.

The Wario example dealt with Grabs.

You don't want to limit the ICs infinite for SOME REASON I DON'T KNOW WHY and they are the most polarizing crap in the game.

Sheiks Grab Releases on characters is low risk high reward and it has to deal with grabs.

 

[Arcansi]

Don't worry, that part was intended to be horrible, just helped the flow of the thread and gave me something to work with, because honestly I sometimes have trouble knowing what you mean.

This all seems to come back to why am I limiting them. If I was limiting them because they are low risk/high reward, that is inconsistent and bad, I can see this.

I will revamp the rule (tomorrow, going to bed now) so that it does what it's supposed to do more efficently and coherently.

Thanks DeLux!

 

[DeLux]

I would also like the record to reflect Arcansi isn't impossible and when properly given evidence, will concede arguments.

On that note, time for bed.

 

[Arcansi]

I would also like the record to reflect Arcansi isn't impossible and when properly given evidence, will concede arguments.

On that note, time for bed.

/Signature!

 

[Kantrip]

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

Arcansi, you said you wouldn't be opposed to stuff like this suggestion early on in the thread.

Yet now, you say your arguments aren't based on risk/reward?

 

[Ghostbone]

Maybe he's changed his mind idk.

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi, I thought this thread already went through the exact same argument delux just presented >___>

 

[TKD]

Quite a silly thread.

Standing chain-grabs with no movement inbetween each grab (walking/dashing/turning around) are bannable. No other way to describe these "low risk blah blah blah" techniques works. Otherwise you have a chain effect that leads to everything being banned. It even fits that Pikachu has one on MK because he's soon to be banned anyway. I wouldn't ban any technique though.

As a maker of rules, I'd slightly tweak the character selection system.
As a player, I'd switch character on my opponent's counter-pick to avoid match-ups I don't want to play.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

just popping in to say i've never even bothered to read this thread because the very idea is stupid

 

[Conviction]

Co-signs above post.

 

[-LzR-]

I read it sometimes if I'm bored.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

just popping in to say i've never even bothered to read this thread because the OP is very stupid

With one replacement and some slight rearrangement...

 

[Akaku94]

This is the thread I come to for facepalms when Jebus hasn't posted in stage boards recently...

 

[WindMajor]

This thread hasn't been productive in a while. I think it's time for it to take another rest for now.