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

[SaveMeJebus]

Reaching optimal parity in a game without having a ridiculous number of rules restricting things would best be done by banning all characters and all stages from the game except for one of each.

Brawl (not even the series of Smash games itself) is the only game I know of that has imposed mid-game restrictions to play (ledge grab limit).

What about Competitive Pokemon? It has the evasion clause

 

[Flayl]

That's not mid-game. A better example would be the freeze clause, but I hear Nintendo put it in an inbuilt status check for that in the 5th gen. But before that, people couldn't use ice moves against teams with a frozen pokémon under the risk of disqualifying themselves, which is plain stupid.

If it weren't for weather and stealth rock, they could just switch back and forth until the 2nd frozen pokémon thawed out, but no such luck.

Anyway Pokémon is so bad competitively (IMO), really it's a Nintendo thing.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That's not mid-game. A better example would be the freeze clause, but I hear Nintendo put it in an inbuilt status check for that in the 5th gen. But before that, people couldn't use ice moves against teams with a frozen pokémon under the risk of disqualifying themselves, which is plain stupid.

If it weren't for weather and stealth rock, they could just switch back and forth until the 2nd frozen pokémon thawed out, but no such luck.

Anyway Pokémon is so bad competitively (IMO), really it's a Nintendo thing.

I was playing PO a while ago and two of my pokemon got frozen. I don't think they have done anything about freeze.

 

[Arcansi]

So it seems most everyone hates me today. What else is new?

First things first...

I tried to tell Arcansi that it wasn't a good idea, but he just said I don't have common sense. >_>

Hopefully he replies to all the posts addressing him to defend his point, considering this thread is still very young.

I'm going to need common sense in Aisle 3.

Of course some people (can say) they like it. Fact is most people don't, and it's unhealthy for competition(A big fact none of you seem to care about).

This was the only place where I said anything about common sense, and I didn't say that you lacked it.

I just said it's common sense to know/consider these things when in a situation such as the one you were in.

Why do you attack infinites specifically as the method to solve issues in matchup parity?

Why not have players play with handicap set to "auto" while in tournament play so it covers all uneven matchups in real time?

Wouldn't that attempt to cover the difference in skill also?

There's a lot of things I could say in this thread.

I'll just say that whatever enforcement idea you have for this is unrealistic.

You mean like any enforcement idea for going over 300% with an infinite is unrealistic? I mean they're pretty much the same thing.

Its kind of hard to argue with people proposing a selfish double standard. I'm sure you wouldn't take me seriously if I suggested we legalize Temple Hyrule to be fair to Sonic mains.

Isn't Hyrule Temple banned because of circle camping, something that Sonic could do as much as he wanted, that is not something we want as a win/loss factor in our game? (essentially the win/loss criteria here would be 'get in the lead'.)

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.

Ok, I concede this.

Omg arcansi you're so dumb.

What you want to do would destroy the community and we wouldn't even be playing Brawl anymore, that's why it's unviable.

Your going to need to explain yourself. I fail to understand why removing something that makes matchups a lot worse then they should be, while keeping the ones that don't, would do what you say.

I don't understand what you have against things that are low-risk high-reward
Isn't that the point of making good decisions?

Combos require practice to learn, skill to be able to start them, and consistency and precision to keep them going and to get them often.

Isn't this what we want from our players? Practice, skill, consistency and precision? (I realize consistency and precision fall under skill)

If you're going to choose a character like DK when you know he can get ***** by DDD because of how DK is designed, you deserve to have to put up with avoiding DDDs grabs, and getting punished for not doing so.
If you're going to play against ICs and not safely avoid grabs when you should know that 1 grab could equal death, you deserve to get punished for getting grabbed, because you didn't play the MU correctly.

Why are you trying to remove the strengths and weaknesses that characters have in certain MUs?

I REALLY need to change the thread title to limited. I want the strengths to be there, just not make it literally 1/3'd of a game.

Reaching optimal parity in a game without having a ridiculous number of rules restricting things would best be done by banning all characters and all stages from the game except for one of each.

Brawl (not even the series of Smash games itself) is the only game I know of that has imposed mid-game restrictions to play (ledge grab limit).

I don't understand what your saying in relevance to the discussion, except that what I want is unreachable.

I know this, and have a goal separate from what it would seem.

There is no defending his point. It is scrub mentality to want to do something like this and has no place in competitive discussion.

I'm confused as to why it isn't locked.

I'm confused as to why you can claim this. It's scrub mentality to remove something that is uncompetitive that your mains (pit/marth) actually only benefit from in the current ruleset?

 

[Zankoku]

What about Competitive Pokemon? It has the evasion clause

VGC is the only truly official format; Smogon formats are cool and all, but they even have different banlists than VGC (yes, certain Pokémon are banned from VGC that are merely OU on Smogon), among other differences (OHKO clause, item clause). With that in mind, I don't think Freeze Clause is enforced when playing on a non-simulator.

Any other restrictions set on Pokémon do not disqualify you from attempting to abuse them, since they are actually toggled in-game (like Smash's random stage select) and simply cause the attack or effect to fail.

Note here: Smogon has implemented clauses that are not enforceable in-game, along with support for legal Pokémon that are not acquirable in-game (without hacking). This might change with 5th Generation's Stadium.

 

[SKidd]

Saying people hate you is stupid because of 1. They don't, 2. They do because you're rude in your arguments & you're opposed to all opinions but your own(or at least you seem that way), 3. People will hate you more, and they'll think you're stupid if they never did to begin with.

 

[Yummy!]

2. They do because you're rude in your arguments & you're opposed to all opinions but your own(or at least you seem that way)

Agree completely

 

[Arcansi]

Saying people hate you is stupid because of 1. They don't, 2. They do because you're rude in your arguments & you're opposed to all opinions but your own(or at least you seem that way), 3. People will hate you more, and they'll think you're stupid if they never did to begin with.

1. True, although I said it seems.

2. I don't know if this is carryover from the Pheonix thread or not, but I tried to look through my last argument for rudeness and couldn't find any. I'll look more, however.

3. Ok.

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi can you sum up EXACTLY what you're trying to argue in this thread? You have the OP, then you say some stuff in the thread, so I just wanna see your entire position in one post so I can respond to it properly.

 

[Arcansi]

Basically, I want to remove the low risk high reward combos in the game, by limiting them to not make htem so extremely high risk.

This includes IC's in their +3 matchups.

Unavoidable grab releases/combos (pikas 0-deaths and stuff) would be limited to a certain % of damage. I don't know EXACTLY how pika's 0-deaths work, so I might have to change it for them, but I don't think they do less then 50% (What I'm looking at as the limit number right now.)

That's pretty much my point.

 

[Tesh]

I had a thread about banning low risk/ high reward stuff.....

Mods locked it.....


























































...twice.

 

[Alphicans]

So you think we should disallow ICs cg in all of their +3/+4 match-ups? But why should we buff those characters? You claim it would be better for competition, but I disagree. Perfect balance in a fighting is impossible... No matter what you do to brawl, there will always be a best character in the game, and will always be some characters that just cannot beat the upper tier character at equal levels of play. I also believe it's HEALTHY for a game to have hard counters to characters. Even if RTS games, certain builds hard counter others, and I am sure the same can be applied to FPS games. You cannot run away from imbalance, it's just something that will always exist unless you ban every character except one, but even then there is the issue of port advantage.

I also gotta ask why you're singling out infinites. GaW has at least a +3 advantage over jigglypuff, and that's just because he outclasses her and zones her out exceptionally well. Should we have a rule that says you cannot use GaW vs jigglypuff? No of course not, because that would completely unfair. Banning ICs infinites, or pika's 0-deaths is no different, because essentially we're telling them to play a different character (almost the same, but not quite).

 

[infiniteV115]

Your going to need to explain yourself. I fail to understand why removing something that makes matchups a lot worse then they should be, while keeping the ones that don't, would do what you say.

Whoa whoa whoa
Who are YOU to decide how good/bad MUs should be?
The only way we can objectively say something of the sort is by not changing the characters at all (not restricting their use of infinites, cgs, etc). This way we can analyse how the ACTUAL characters, with all of their traits to all of their respective extents, fare against one another, as opposed to how our versions of the characters fare against one another.

By "our", I mean "your", because you're the one trying to place limitations on these characters.

If you're going to try to get all characters tourney viable with fairly even MUs, you might as well play BBrawl (assuming it is what I think it is) rather than try to change vBrawl.

I REALLY need to change the thread title to limited. I want the strengths to be there, just not make it literally 1/3'd of a game.

Uh. That sounds about right to me.
1/3rd of the game is taking advantage of character strengths, while avoiding your opponents'.
1/3rd of the game is working around character weaknesses, while exploiting your opponents'.
1/3rd of the game is stage selection.

And even if you don't agree with these numbers, you have yet to explain why you want to remove certain character strengths and weaknesses. I DID ask, after all

 

[fkacyan]

I'm confused as to why you can claim this. It's scrub mentality to remove something that is uncompetitive that your mains (pit/marth) actually only benefit from in the current ruleset?

In what way is it uncompetitive?

 

[Arcansi]

Whoa whoa whoa
Who are YOU to decide how good/bad MUs should be?
The only way we can objectively say something of the sort is by not changing the characters at all (not restricting their use of infinites, cgs, etc). This way we can analyse how the ACTUAL characters, with all of their traits to all of their respective extents, fare against one another, as opposed to how our versions of the characters fare against one another.

The matchups, in a competitive game, should all be even, to allow for perfect competition. This is almost impossible (it's possible assuming some complex math using our reaction time as a base, but it likely won't ever happen in our lifetime or anyone elses.)

By "our", I mean "your", because you're the one trying to place limitations on these characters.

See above.

If you're going to try to get all characters tourney viable with fairly even MUs, you might as well play BBrawl (assuming it is what I think it is) rather than try to change vBrawl.

I'm not going to try to. I'm just going to try to do what I can.

Uh. That sounds about right to me.
1/3rd of the game is taking advantage of character strengths, while avoiding your opponents'.
1/3rd of the game is working around character weaknesses, while exploiting your opponents'.
1/3rd of the game is stage selection.

And even if you don't agree with these numbers, you have yet to explain why you want to remove certain character strengths and weaknesses. I DID ask, after all

The numbers are bad.

I want to remove them because they are uncompetitive. And really, I have yet to see an argument against this except 'Well we can't ever achieve perfect balance so maybe we shouldn't do anything!"

And that wasn't even actually an argument.

So you think we should disallow ICs cg in all of their +3/+4 match-ups? But why should we buff those characters? You claim it would be better for competition, but I disagree. Perfect balance in a fighting is impossible... No matter what you do to brawl, there will always be a best character in the game, and will always be some characters that just cannot beat the upper tier character at equal levels of play. I also believe it's HEALTHY for a game to have hard counters to characters. Even if RTS games, certain builds hard counter others, and I am sure the same can be applied to FPS games. You cannot run away from imbalance, it's just something that will always exist unless you ban every character except one, but even then there is the issue of port advantage.

What your saying is, we'll always have balance, why try to nerf it's effects? Or atleast that's what I'm hearing, correct me if I'm wrong.

In response....because infinites are uncompetitive by definition. You claim this to be untrue, so here we go.

com·pet·i·tive
   [kuhm-pet-i-tiv]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
3.
having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.
4.
useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.

We are, quite obviously using definition #2. Infinites are not a feature that makes for successful competition by basically taking what would be a normally much more fair risk/reward ratio and making it skewed in such a way as to not make the game as skill based as before.

The way I see it, there's two options.

1. Make character selection less of a factor (trying to null all matchups down to +/-2)

2. Make character selection more of a factor (Give everyone counters, pretty much the same amount of counters for everyone and keep all other matchups at +/-1.)

Would you prefer the rule be aimed at achieving #2? And if so, why?

I also gotta ask why you're singling out infinites. GaW has at least a +3 advantage over jigglypuff, and that's just because he outclasses her and zones her out exceptionally well. Should we have a rule that says you cannot use GaW vs jigglypuff? No of course not, because that would completely unfair. Banning ICs infinites, or pika's 0-deaths is no different, because essentially we're telling them to play a different character (almost the same, but not quite).

The LGL does the same thing.

So does the stagelist (I have yet to see a counter-argument for either of these.)

Under your logic, changing the games ruleset is asking people to play a different game, and therefore should never be done. This obviously cannot be true, therefore your logic is innately flawed.

NOTE: I'm completly fine with IC's being exempt from the rule if it's agreed upon by a large amount of you guys. This would mean you guys would be obligated to defend yourselves(atleast, as much as you normally are with anything else), of course.

 

[Alphicans]

Ok so we use definition two. I still think ICs chaingrabs fit under that definition. You're neglecting the fact that picking ICs IS A RISK IN ITSELF. ICs have a horrible grab range, and have a very tough time catching characters that have either great camping abilities, or great options for running away (or both), and obviously the reward would be catching them, which is actually very hard to do as an ICs player, is to get a 0-death. I think that if the ICs can come up with ways to catch a very skilled opponent, they very well deserve the 0-death. Using dictionary definitions DO NOT help your case at all.

I agree the LGL does the same thing, and I am completely against an LGL (except for MK). Stage lists, however, are not the same thing, because brawl gave us the feature to turn off stages, so we are still playing the same game. Other examples that fit your position are the current sudden death rule, but that doesn't help you much either, because we never played sudden death out ever, so we're not changing the game we play.

 

[Arcansi]

Ok so we use definition two. I still think ICs chaingrabs fit under that definition. You're neglecting the fact that picking ICs IS A RISK IN ITSELF. ICs have a horrible grab range, and have a very tough time catching characters that have either great camping abilities, or great options for running away (or both), and obviously the reward would be catching them, which is actually very hard to do as an ICs player, is to get a 0-death. I think that if the ICs can come up with ways to catch a very skilled opponent, they very well deserve the 0-death. Using dictionary definitions DO NOT help your case at all.

Hence the note at the bottom of my post? And my plan to not even limit them at all in all but 8 matchups?

I agree the LGL does the same thing, and I am completely against an LGL (except for MK). Stage lists, however, are not the same thing, because brawl gave us the feature to turn off stages, so we are still playing the same game. Other examples that fit your position are the current sudden death rule, but that doesn't help you much either, because we never played sudden death out ever, so we're not changing the game we play.

Actually, we are. A game with Japes legal as compared to a game without is noticeably different, especially in certain matchups.

The game we play isn't defined by the creation, it's defined by the use.


I don't see any counterarguments at all... (except that one about the stages, that was legit, but you didn't actually counter my point. D

 

[Alphicans]

The game is still the same though. The metagame changes, but we're not making surgical changes, so we're still playing brawl. There is heavy belief in the competitive gaming world that says making surgical changes is very scrubby, just so you know what you're getting yourself into :/.

My statement still stands. Double blind picking makes it so picking ICs is a risk in every set. If you refuse to double blind pick, that is your fault.

 

[SKidd]

'Well we can't ever achieve perfect balance so maybe we shouldn't do anything!"


com·pet·i·tive
   [kuhm-pet-i-tiv]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
3.
having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.
4.
useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.

It seems like you're insulting our intelligence. Posting the entire definition was unnecessary, and your representation of the opposing side of the argument came off as sarcastic and making those against you seem stupid.

 

[Arcansi]

The game is still the same though. The metagame changes, but we're not making surgical changes, so we're still playing brawl. There is heavy belief in the competitive gaming world that says making surgical changes is very scrubby, just so you know what you're getting yourself into :/.

1. I'm going to try and understand your point of view (after I express my own) and see how good I do.

2. I always understand what I'm getting into, somewhat. Thing is if all they have on me is that it's scrubby, then they'll lose the argument. It sucks not having a lot of people willing to logically consider this and then come to the table, but I can deal.

Your saying changing stages only changes the metagame. Changing stages changes matchups and stage picking and tier lists, which would mean all that would be stuff that qualifies under metagame changes logically, which I can understand.

What I can't understand, is what else my rule changes. And if it doesn't change anything else, why is it considered different? I'm doing my best here.

My statement still stands. Double blind picking makes it so picking ICs is a risk in every set. If you refuse to double blind pick, that is your fault.

How is this a point relating to any of the current discussion? It's not like I'm looking to nerf IC globally or anything.

It seems like you're insulting our intelligence. Posting the entire definition was unnecessary, and your representation of the opposing side of the argument came off as sarcastic and making those against you seem stupid.

I couldn't think of a way to express that argument the way I felt while reading it without it sounding like that, and I awknowledge it sounds like that.

I have to quote the full definition to be fair. It's part of providing proof(and making sure two people are using the same definition of a word, which is REALLY NEEDED).

 

[Alphicans]

The main difference is that you're going from brawl to not brawl with your rule, and with the stage list rule, you're going from brawl to.... well still brawl. Your rule also drastically changes how ICs will play the game in those 8 or so match-ups, while different stages will either allow them to play the same, or switch off the character entirely. People who support non-surgical changes only have more than just calling you scrubby, they have a very well respected man on their side (sirlin) and plenty of sound arguments that do make a lot of sense. However, from my view I take competitiveness as mostly subjective. Anything can be competitive in and of itself, so I see no problem with 0-deaths in the game, and I see no problem with limiting them. Limiting them, however, takes a lot of work, and the question of realistic enforceability comes into play. Saying you're only allowed to cg till 50% is kind of hard, because what if you get your first grab at like 120%? Is the IC player not allowed to cg then usmash right away? Saying cgs are banned completely is much more realistic, and I would respect that position much more than your current one, but again you cannot say your position is right over mine, because it's all subjective; we play the game we want to play.

I just wanna ask you something: instead of limiting the cg on ICs, would you be more in favor of having lets say ganon have 3 free warlock punches at anytime during the match? As in, he can call it out and then the opponent is forced to stop and the ganon can warlock punch? This type of comparison was often used to combat the lgl, but it held little weight because people thought the difference was too much, but I feel that your suggested rule is a much more suitable comparison.

 

[Kewkky]

Arcansi, I can't find the articles, but here's SOME version of them:

Sirlin: Introducing... the "Scrub"
Sirlin: What should be banned?

Try and understand it from OUR point of view why banning everything you want is a bad idea.

 

[Ghostbone]

Read Sirlin's articles and look at every example of every fighting game ever in history and you'll see why trying to do what you're trying to do doesn't make sense and lacks precendence.

Plus nobody would play a game where they have to read a rule book (which is what we'd have if we implemented all the nerfs you're basically suggesting we should) to not have themselves disqualified, and even then would have to purposely play badly to make sure you don't disqualify them, it's stupid.


Combos are a part of the game, and it's ridiculous to get rid of them, it's the opponent's fault for both choosing a character susceptible to the combo and getting hit by it.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm convinced this isn't locked so people can continue reading and laughing at this. It's the only logical explanation.

 

[Zankoku]

Be nice, Thio. Thread only gets locked on creator's request or if it truly gets out of hand.

 

[SKidd]

Sort of irrelevant, but work on your grammar Arcansi, it would be easier to take you seriously if you did.





edit: Just reread this and it seems like I'm insulting you. Ah, well.

 

[fkacyan]

Be nice, Thio. Thread only gets locked on creator's request or if it truly gets out of hand.

What is there to be nice about? This is Competitive Brawl discussion, not "I think this is unfair so let's artificially boost characters" discussion.

If rules truly prevent absolutely useless os stupid threads to be locked, I think rules need to be changin'

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, I can't find the articles, but here's SOME version of them:

Sirlin: Introducing... the "Scrub"
Sirlin: What should be banned?

Try and understand it from OUR point of view why banning everything you want is a bad idea.

I am trying. I read that article, and one of the points was that you shouldn't ban something unless it becomes the only usable strategy in tournaments.

This will almost never happen with anything in Brawl, due to the open nature of the game. However, I can certainly tell you that if a Lucas is outplaying you as Marth, that grab lock? It becomes your only option, and allows you to win when you shouldn't.

I don't know if you guys can see it from my perspective. Even if I was to take on the opinions of the average fighting game person, I would still be against such infinites as ruin matchups. This seems to make sense even in the context of Sirlins articles.

Read Sirlin's articles and look at every example of every fighting game ever in history and you'll see why trying to do what you're trying to do doesn't make sense and lacks precendence.

Plus nobody would play a game where they have to read a rule book (which is what we'd have if we implemented all the nerfs you're basically suggesting we should) to not have themselves disqualified, and even then would have to purposely play badly to make sure you don't disqualify them, it's stupid.


Combos are a part of the game, and it's ridiculous to get rid of them, it's the opponent's fault for both choosing a character susceptible to the combo and getting hit by it.

1. Ok.

2. I have to purposely play badly to make sure I'm not disqualified. (Pit, LGL.)

3. There are a ton of arguments against this, but it's your opinion. You probably wouldn't change it if Sirlin told you it was wrong.

What is there to be nice about? This is Competitive Brawl discussion, not "I think this is unfair so let's artificially boost characters" discussion.

If rules truly prevent absolutely useless os stupid threads to be locked, I think rules need to be changin'

Your going to need to explain why this thread is absolutely useless. (stupid is subjective.)

Your also going to need to understand that the main argument against me is "Status Quo says we don't do this." It's true and something I have to deal with, but from a Platonic Argument standpoint your all 100% wrong. No offence.

Sort of irrelevant, but work on your grammar Arcansi, it would be easier to take you seriously if you did.

edit: Just reread this and it seems like I'm insulting you. Ah, well.

I'm 15, I do my best. I don't even know what I'm doing wrong. EDIT: Except I comma spliced twice in my last couple posts, I think.

The main difference is that you're going from brawl to not brawl with your rule, and with the stage list rule, you're going from brawl to.... well still brawl. Your rule also drastically changes how ICs will play the game in those 8 or so match-ups, while different stages will either allow them to play the same, or switch off the character entirely. People who support non-surgical changes only have more than just calling you scrubby, they have a very well respected man on their side (sirlin) and plenty of sound arguments that do make a lot of sense. However, from my view I take competitiveness as mostly subjective. Anything can be competitive in and of itself, so I see no problem with 0-deaths in the game, and I see no problem with limiting them. Limiting them, however, takes a lot of work, and the question of realistic enforceability comes into play. Saying you're only allowed to cg till 50% is kind of hard, because what if you get your first grab at like 120%? Is the IC player not allowed to cg then usmash right away? Saying cgs are banned completely is much more realistic, and I would respect that position much more than your current one, but again you cannot say your position is right over mine, because it's all subjective; we play the game we want to play.

1. Your just saying that, there's no proof behind it. Like I'm doing my best to understand you but you don't logically make any sense.

2. Wouldn't switching off the character entirely also be a fix to my rule?

3. You understand they just need to get the grab like a max of 3 times, right?

4. Sirlin's Articles on the subject are mostly opinion. They're good to know and good articles, but opinion doesn't hold up in arguments.

5. I haven't many of these logically sound arguments (if any).

6. I'm saying you can only deal 50% with them.

7. Logically I can say my opinion is more competitive then yours, and is therefore better for competition. And so far, I would be right.

I just wanna ask you something: instead of limiting the cg on ICs, would you be more in favor of having lets say ganon have 3 free warlock punches at anytime during the match? As in, he can call it out and then the opponent is forced to stop and the ganon can warlock punch? This type of comparison was often used to combat the lgl, but it held little weight because people thought the difference was too much, but I feel that your suggested rule is a much more suitable comparison.

I would test this 100%

It would probably have to be more complicated then that to make the matchup around 50/50, but yeah, I would test that.

 

[Bizkit047]

Not sure if this thread is serious or not. This is part of why other competitive fighters laugh at us.

 

[vVv Rapture]

I am trying. I read that article, and one of the points was that you shouldn't ban something unless it becomes the only usable strategy in tournaments.

This will almost never happen with anything in Brawl, due to the open nature of the game. However, I can certainly tell you that if a Lucas is outplaying you as Marth, that grab lock? It becomes your only option, and allows you to win when you shouldn't.

I don't know if you guys can see it from my perspective. Even if I was to take on the opinions of the average fighting game person, I would still be against such infinites as ruin matchups. This seems to make sense even in the context of Sirlins articles.

I don't see how it's your "only option". Just because you're getting outplayed doesn't mean it's literally your only option. Literally, you still have all your options, you're just getting outplayed.

Honestly, I think this is getting beat to death. Infinites do not make the game unplayable, they are part of the game. It's really ridiculous to start listing infinites and high-damage combos because your opinion is that they are bad.

 

[clowsui]

competition begins @ the character selection screen. picking characters to create a more advantageous situation is a skill in and of itself

furthermore, every character can be caught in an infinite but not every character is subject to the infinite to the same degree - some characters have a higher potential to avoid the infinite and many stages can be picked that decrease the effect of the infinite.

do you consider a tactic creating non-viability on a small scale to be noncompetitive?

 

[Arcansi]

Not sure if this thread is serious or not. This is part of why other competitive fighters laugh at us.

I would laugh back if our game was vastly more balanced then theirs.

Other people's opinions don't matter much to me.

When it comes to this kind of stuff, logic should be the main resource. I care about stuff like ease of use and such, but emotions just don't matter in this debate, and shouldn't come into play.

Along with emotions, subjectivity (Most of the time, I have argued it once on the basis that it was actually the best option in a specific scenario. I never got a counterargument.)

I don't see how it's your "only option". Just because you're getting outplayed doesn't mean it's literally your only option. Literally, you still have all your options, you're just getting outplayed.

Honestly, I think this is getting beat to death. Infinites do not make the game unplayable, they are part of the game. It's really ridiculous to start listing infinites and high-damage combos because your opinion is that they are bad.

>Smash DEBATER. >Unable to understand it's not my opinion.

It's not my opinion. They. Are. Uncompetitive. I do not understand how basic I have to make it to get a garuntee that all people will be able to understand what I am trying to say, at least on a basic level, within reason. I just do not understand.

It is true that it isn't your only option, but within the context of Sirlin article, what I wrote is more understandable.

Without it, it goes more like "It becomes an out for your unskilled self, allowing you to win when you are effectively less skilled then your opponent overall, and is able to be attempted SEVERAL times in one match. This is assuming you cannot win using the extremely large advantage you have already, at which point you should likely be a much worse player then your opponent."

competition begins @ the character selection screen. picking characters to create a more advantageous situation is a skill in and of itself

furthermore, every character can be caught in an infinite but not every character is subject to the infinite to the same degree - some characters have a higher potential to avoid the infinite and many stages can be picked that decrease the effect of the infinite.

do you consider a tactic creating non-viability to be noncompetitive?

1. This is true. I'm not against certain characters beating other characters. I'm against certain characters beating a large portion of the cast, and certain ones losing to a large portion of the cast. This has no place in this debate. I'm also against the game basically ending at the character selection screen. That does have place in this debate.

2. By definition, something that removes more from competition then it adds is uncompetitive. Rough definition, to be honest.

Point is, by definition it is. There isn't really any opinion/consideration involved. Unless of course I'm missing something.

 

[SKidd]

I'm 11 and I have better grammar than you. No johns.




... You misspelled guarantee wrong, by the way. Pay more attention to spell-check.

 

[UltiMario]

Fact: There are no infinites in this game that are overcentralizing. Either they are impractical or even impossible to pull off in a match, or your name is Ice Climbers, which is still a difficult game of getting a grab against opposing top tiers.

If any infinites were actually piss easy enough and high reward enough to warrant a ban, Diddy, ICs, Falco, and Wario would likely be tied for the best character in the game. But none of them are, obviously.

Also, there already an anti-infinite rule. Nothing about 300%. This is to decentralize infinites for stalling, which is enough as is. You wanna change that rule? Then you should think of a way to do it without punishing skill for the shallow enough depth Brawl has as is.

Final note: I dare you to find ONE fighting game where infinites were banned. ONE.
Infinites? Suck up and deal with them. Banning infinites is just plain silly, and every notion that MvC3 or ANYONE would ban infinites if they weren't patched is absolutely wrong, coming from someone in the fighting game community. I have played a wide array of games, and I can say that banning infinites and long combos- with that hampering the ability to get into the game, would kill the game and the community pretty ****ing fast, and would do far more harm to a game than the infinites ever could. Even THE LARGEST MONEY MATCH OUT OF ANY FIGHTING GAME IN HISTORY had infinites in it.

tl;dr

Combo/Infinite Ban = Scrub Mentality

 

[Zankoku]

However, I can certainly tell you that if a Lucas is outplaying you as Marth, that grab lock? It becomes your only option, and allows you to win when you shouldn't.

This is incredibly awkward logic. However, it is not the case for two simple reasons:
1. The player is not required to choose Lucas.
2. Choosing Marth is not your only option, and as Marth the regrab loop is not your only option.

While I'm not a big advocate of Sirlin, his writing on banning things involves removing things that overcentralize universally, not locally. (in the US) Akuma is banned because, besides the Akuma player being much much worse, the only option to winning is selecting Akuma. In this case, it overcentralizes universally because it limits your winning options to selecting and playing Akuma.

In the E. Honda vs Ryu match-up, the optimal strategy for Ryu is to repeatedly throw fireballs, and it causes Honda to lose the match-up pretty hard. This overcentralizes locally because the strategy of spamming fireballs (in this example) only applies to this single match-up, and while it is optimal for the case of using Ryu against E. Honda, it is not optimal for Ryu against, say, Sagat, and it definitely not optimal for T. Hawk to attempt to spam fireballs against E. Honda. While banning fireballs would "balance" the match-up, this is really an unnecessary change because the match-up in the first place only happens when the players select those two characters against each other.

Put into the much more relevant example of Brawl, Dedede's optimal strategy against characters that can be chaingrabbed is to grab them and then chaingrab them across the stage. You could say this "centralizes" the match-up toward getting grabs for Dedede. However, it certainly does not centralize any strategies toward picking Dedede in the first place.

tl;dr We'd ban things to stop games from centralizing toward a single strategy of selecting one character (or stage, or combination of character and stage) and using it, not things that centralize character match-up specific strategies.

 

[Alphicans]

1. Your just saying that, there's no proof behind it. Like I'm doing my best to understand you but you don't logically make any sense.

2. Wouldn't switching off the character entirely also be a fix to my rule?

3. You understand they just need to get the grab like a max of 3 times, right?

4. Sirlin's Articles on the subject are mostly opinion. They're good to know and good articles, but opinion doesn't hold up in arguments.

5. I haven't many of these logically sound arguments (if any).

6. I'm saying you can only deal 50% with them.

7. Logically I can say my opinion is more competitive then yours, and is therefore better for competition. And so far, I would be right.

K what? Arcansi, you actually did not make much sense at all. Your first point... Proof for what? All I said was that competitive is subjective. That leads to point 7, which is really silly, because your opinion is not more competitive than mine. You want proof? There is none, just like how you haven't proven anything either.

Point 2, I don't get at all. Point 3 also makes no sense. 3 grabs max? What are you saying? Point 4... You have an opinion too. Why are you thinking your opinion is fact, and the others are just opinions? How smart do you think you are? Your arguments aren't logical either :/. Trust me, if this thread was actually worth responding to, those people would be coming in and tearing you apart. I am only responding to you so I can attempt to stop you from making yourself look dumber than you already are. Yeah it's offensive, but you really need to trust me when I tell you you're just being a really typical dumb 15 year old.

Point 6 is the only thing that really made sense to me. Thank-you for clarifying your rule. So I guess the opponent has to keep a tab of how much damage ICs have done. Oh and when the IC player does go over 50%, then what? How is there a way to prove it? What defines a cg? Can ICs throw normally? What if the cg was a mistake, and they purposefully drop it right away.

And lol, you'd like to TEST the punch rule. K sweet. Allow me to make a ruleset that you'd probably agree with, and then everyone can laugh at you.

ARCANSI'S "COMPETITIVE" RULESET!

ICs cg can only deal 50% TOTAL in a match vs the 8 characters he has a +3 advantage on.

Game and watch is not allowed to be used vs jigglypuff.
-Snake cannot use utilt vs jigglypuff
-DDD cannot use utilt vs jigglypuff or bthrow her
-olimar cannot usmash jigglypuff, pivot grab, or use red pikmin fair vs her

Falco cannot deal more than 50% in laser damage vs ganon, bowser, DK, DDD or charizard.

MK cannot tornado (oh boy) ganon, bowser, DK, DDD, charizard, ROB, c.falcon, samus... **** it. MK cannot tornado at all.

Diddy can't use bananas vs anyone he beats +3 or worse.

If you do any of these in match, you can potentially lose.

Arcansi, I suggest you use this ruleset + anything else you want to add at a tournament you hold and see for yourself how much enforceability comes into play.

 

[Tesh]

Be nice, Thio. Thread only gets locked on creator's request or if it truly gets out of hand.

lies
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=310261
you locked this thread 7 pages after 1 idiot was spamming and didn't even provide a reason. this thread should also be locked simply because it proposed something most people aren't going to agree with.

On topic though, I wonder how you plan to determine what is "low risk". If an ICs player dash grabs a Luigi (he spotdodges) and gets killed at 60 by Up B, or dash grabs MK (shuttle loops, nairs, 0-deaths nana and then outspaces popo easily), wasn't that high risk/high reward?

What about Charizard's Rock Smash sweetspot combos? Those do 60+ damage. But as a PT player, I'll tell you if you get shielded, you can get punished very hard. What about Marth's shield breaker? I'd say thats pretty high reward as well.

 

[Arcansi]

ARCANSI'S "COMPETITIVE" RULESET!

(Tons of stuff he pretty much guessed)

Some guy actually asked me for my optimal ruleset the other day and guess what, I told him.

You probably shouldn't assume so much, please.

You also misunderstand something. The 50% damage is only in one combo. If IC's gets another grab they're free to do another 50%.

Replying to the rest now, just wanted to get that out of the way. (Because it was unfounded and wasn't even a point.)

I'm 11 and I have better grammar than you. No johns.




... You misspelled guarantee wrong, by the way. Pay more attention to spell-check.

Sorry.

Fact: There are no infinites in this game that are overcentralizing. Either they are impractical or even impossible to pull off in a match, or your name is Ice Climbers, which is still a difficult game of getting a grab against opposing top tiers.

Or your name is Marth and you standing grab Lucas for 1 stock should you ever grab him. There are likely other examples, I just don't know if there's a comprehensive list of infinites out there anywhere.

If any infinites were actually piss easy enough and high reward enough to warrant a ban, Diddy, ICs, Falco, and Wario would likely be tied for the best character in the game. But none of them are, obviously.

Because their infinites are situational. The fighting game scene in general seems to have no problem with such things, calling it skill. It should probably be called in some way luck, as you usually don't plan for such a thing, and it has much more luck involved then any other technique in the game.

I also don't understand what your saying because in relation to the Marth v Lucas infinite, which actually is piss easy to do and you know, only gives you a stock.

Also, there already an anti-infinite rule. Nothing about 300%. This is to decentralize infinites for stalling, which is enough as is. You wanna change that rule? Then you should think of a way to do it without punishing skill for the shallow enough depth Brawl has as is.

Not punishing skill. 50% is quite plenty for one grab, is it not?

Final note: I dare you to find ONE fighting game where infinites were banned. ONE.

So, rules so far for floor tourney are as follows:

-2/3 Rounds, matches are best 2/3, 3/5 in winners/losers finals, 4/7 in grand finals (Subject to change)
-MOB/KAK banned (Subject to change)
-All infinites excluding wall infinites and Weapon Steal-only infinites are banned
--1 Free Throw per combo
--1 OTG per combo
--No ACs/33s
-Winner keeps character, loser is free to change
-Stage is random select

This good enough for you? Scource (http://testyourmight.com/forum/showthread.php?2656-rules-or-no-rules-MKA-amp-MKD-at-wb..&)

Note that they also limit combos. So, yeah.

Infinites? Suck up and deal with them. Banning infinites is just plain silly, and every notion that MvC3 or ANYONE would ban infinites if they weren't patched is absolutely wrong, coming from someone in the fighting game community. I have played a wide array of games, and I can say that banning infinites and long combos- with that hampering the ability to get into the game, would kill the game and the community pretty ****ing fast, and would do far more harm to a game than the infinites ever could. Even THE LARGEST MONEY MATCH OUT OF ANY FIGHTING GAME IN HISTORY had infinites in it.

I conceded this point. I can't see how it relates to us, though.

tl;dr

Combo/Infinite Ban = Scrub Mentality

Because this has reasoning behind it when the infinite is uncompetitive by definition.

This is incredibly awkward logic. However, it is not the case for two simple reasons:
1. The player is not required to choose Lucas.
2. Choosing Marth is not your only option, and as Marth the regrab loop is not your only option.

I noted that I put that wrong in an earlier post. To restate, it becomes an option that allows you to win even though the opponent has already proven he has a higher skill level then you. Unless one of the skills we actually wish to test is the ability to get 3 grabs in a game in specific matchups?

While I'm not a big advocate of Sirlin, his writing on banning things involves removing things that overcentralize universally, not locally. (in the US) Akuma is banned because, besides the Akuma player being much much worse, the only option to winning is selecting Akuma. In this case, it overcentralizes universally because it limits your winning options to selecting and playing Akuma.

He never actually says globally. I mean, he implies it, but everything he says can be applied to a matchup without taking the quote out of context.

In the E. Honda vs Ryu match-up, the optimal strategy for Ryu is to repeatedly throw fireballs, and it causes Honda to lose the match-up pretty hard. This overcentralizes locally because the strategy of spamming fireballs (in this example) only applies to this single match-up, and while it is optimal for the case of using Ryu against E. Honda, it is not optimal for Ryu against, say, Sagat, and it definitely not optimal for T. Hawk to attempt to spam fireballs against E. Honda. While banning fireballs would "balance" the match-up, this is really an unnecessary change because the match-up in the first place only happens when the players select those two characters against each other.

Changing something only in the situation that it is imbalanced is unnecessary?

I could understand compared to globally balancing it, but your last sentence basically seems to say what the paragraph says in all, which is that yes, matchups only happen when two players select X & Y character. (Where X may = Y)

Put into the much more relevant example of Brawl, Dedede's optimal strategy against characters that can be chaingrabbed is to grab them and then chaingrab them across the stage. You could say this "centralizes" the match-up toward getting grabs for Dedede. However, it certainly does not centralize any strategies toward picking Dedede in the first place.

tl;dr We'd ban things to stop games from centralizing toward a single strategy of selecting one character (or stage, or combination of character and stage) and using it, not things that centralize character match-up specific strategies.

Like the above, I am failing to realize how this relates to the discussion unless your saying it simply isn't uncompetitive enough to become banned. Is that what your trying to say?

K what? Arcansi, you actually did not make much sense at all. Your first point... Proof for what? All I said was that competitive is subjective. That leads to point 7, which is really silly, because your opinion is not more competitive than mine. You want proof? There is none, just like how you haven't proven anything either.

You know, I get bagged on for being too basic, as if I'm insulting your guys' intelligence when I do something that is basic. But...your forcing me.

com·pet·i·tive
   [kuhm-pet-i-tiv]
adjective

2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.

Obviously, uncompetitive is the opposite.

(Some)Infinites are uncompetitive because they are not well suited for competition(in Brawl).

This is because they take certain matchups and overcentralize them towards one strategy, often for only one character. This is bad for competition because it creates a scenario where one character has a large advantage over the other, and this advantage also stems from something that is extremely easy to pull off. And even if you do get punished for missing it, you will never be as harshly punished as if you were to land it.

While this would probably be acceptable if it wasn't so extreme, that is not the case.

Understand?

Point 2, I don't get at all. Point 3 also makes no sense. 3 grabs max? What are you saying? Point 4... You have an opinion too. Why are you thinking your opinion is fact, and the others are just opinions? How smart do you think you are? Your arguments aren't logical either :/. Trust me, if this thread was actually worth responding to, those people would be coming in and tearing you apart. I am only responding to you so I can attempt to stop you from making yourself look dumber than you already are. Yeah it's offensive, but you really need to trust me when I tell you you're just being a really typical dumb 15 year old.

Point 2 is saying that if infinites were to get limited, you could just pick a character that cannot do infinites, thereby solving the problem through character switching. This is very close to the same as changing character if your stage gets globaly banned.

With no input error (extremely easy to assume because of how easy this stuff is once you learn it) you would only need 3 grabs to win a game where you can infinite your opponent off a grab. If the infinite doesn't start on a grab, replace 'grab' with whatever move does start the infinite.

EDIT: Would you like me to explain the rest of my points (barring 6) in similar fashion?

Point 6 is the only thing that really made sense to me. Thank-you for clarifying your rule. So I guess the opponent has to keep a tab of how much damage ICs have done. Oh and when the IC player does go over 50%, then what? How is there a way to prove it? What defines a cg? Can ICs throw normally? What if the cg was a mistake, and they purposefully drop it right away.

1. They would have to keep a tab of how much damage the IC's have done in a single grab combo, if they wanted too. (That's easy math though.)

2. If they admit it/there was observers, stock/game/set. If not, you would have to save the match to a replay and watch it over to decide (although this really should not happen given sensible IC's who know their combos and plan for it to do 45%) in which case it would probably just go game/set. Although I would much rather argue this after we got the rest of the stuff out of the way, if you don't mind.

And lol, you'd like to TEST the punch rule. K sweet. Allow me to make a ruleset that you'd probably agree with, and then everyone can laugh at you.

What is wrong with wanting to test a rule to get more information on it again?

Arcansi, I suggest you use this ruleset + anything else you want to add at a tournament you hold and see for yourself how much enforceability comes into play.

It's currently impossible for me to ever host a tournament due to forces outside my control. Else I might just have done it. (I mean, I could probably pretty easily host a no-buy in/prize 8 person tourney, if that qualifies)

On topic though, I wonder how you plan to determine what is "low risk". If an ICs player dash grabs a Luigi (he spotdodges) and gets killed at 60 by Up B, or dash grabs MK (shuttle loops, nairs, 0-deaths nana and then outspaces popo easily), wasn't that high risk/high reward?

Yes, but grab in itself is not a high risk option. Dash grab is a different story, and only in certain matchups. Would you have the rule apply to this also, and if so why?

What about Charizard's Rock Smash sweetspot combos? Those do 60+ damage. But as a PT player, I'll tell you if you get shielded, you can get punished very hard. What about Marth's shield breaker? I'd say thats pretty high reward as well.

I don't understand why these are low-risk high-reward either, because I never said they were.

 

[Alphicans]

It doesn't matter what I guessed, because all of those changes follow the same train of thought as your ICs rule. If that's ok in your head, then LOGICALLY all of my changes are ok too. If you disagree you are contradicting yourself.

 

[DeLux]

I am going to circumvent the rule by making sure the IC panel in the BBR Matchup Chart decides every matchup is no higher than +2 in ICs favor