Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Also a history where the metagame hasn't been given time to develop very often in between games.
MvC2 Iron Man infinite was just as easy, probably easier in fact than any of the infinites in MvC3 and was not banned in the ~9 year period from its discovery to now. Of course there's plenty of other MvC2 infinites too.
You seem to have trouble grasping the difference between a game being patched and the players trying to fix the game with rules outside of the game itself.
See the argument above.
Stagelist buffs/nerfs characters.
You were cool, and then you were mean.
Will vs Rich Brown is an example of how we don't.
Probably why it wasn't banned. MvC2 was all about infinites.
They would've done it, had Capcom not.
Stagelist.
Quoting this because it is completely incorrect.
My friend was incorrect, then.
Why only ic's, there are tons of other characters with 3+ match ups.
Take it up with the community.
ICs vs DDD/Kirby/Bowser/Shiek/Fox/Samus/Falcon/Ganon.
Since you clearly know nothing about the game, why are you trying to act like you understand its community?
What's your basis for this when there's absolutely no precedent? Plenty of games have enjoyed a long tournament life, especially in Japan where greater player density means older games can enjoy a more stable scene. Alpha 3 got played for 10 years; crouch cancel infinites were not banned. Oh hey, here's a match video from last week for a pretty damn old game, showing something pretty abusable that isn't banned.
"Ground based" is something that is universal, not character matchup specific.
Got false information. Sorry.
Japan has a MUCH different community/stigma for this, so that isn't even usable.
See Above.
The North American Community.
Those were the two main games in the USA up until SF4 came out too, what now?
Saying some words is not evidence.
Almost anyone vs IC's. You suddenly see them playing aerial based instead of ground based (if they normally would play ground based or balanced).
http://www.slideshare.net/frankcalberg/5-reasons-why-people-resist-change
Different. Games.
Essentially all we're doing is saying some words (however because of common sense...).
To remove infinites?
They were games that enjoyed a long tournament life (so the "metagame" had time to develop), and suffered from abusable strategies that "overcentralized" the game heavily, yet those strategies were not banned or addressed in any way.
Except this has never been a factor in banning anything else in a fighting game, ever, except in the extreme case that the game becomes literally "you must pick this character or you will not ever, EVER win."
This is where you should come to realize them being different games is what makes your comparison not work.
Quit moving the goalposts. You're the one who claimed that the MvC3 community would ban infinites and now, when we find you have no evidence and that there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, you cry "they're different games!"
You actually have no evidence that the MvC3 community would do anything.
Stop making foolish troll comments and try to have a good discussion. If you disagree say why without some wild example.
Its a grab or release that combos into into another grab. Or I guess to you, its okay to dthrow-uptilt but not okay to dthrow-dthrow.
Evidence from the history of fighting games, whose community leaders and tournament organisers are the same people who lead the MvC3 community and run MvC3 tournaments, is more evidence than you've provided, which is nothing at all.
And they can be hit with a single move and be separated and Nana simply dies and then you can't cg anymore.
There is no defending his point. It is scrub mentality to want to do something like this and has no place in competitive discussion.
