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

[Player-1]

It doesn't matter who wins or loses according to him since he can clearly beat marths with infinites legal and says that he can beat DKs with it legal as well, he just has to camp them in order to do it and no one wants to see that, well the same goes for ICs.

 

[Kewkky]

Well if he says he can beat them then I guess they shouldn't be banned, right? I mean, why ban something that is both character-specific and beatable?

 

[DeLux]

Delux and alph great comments and I agree.
It is not a pride issue it is an adaption issue. I refuse to give up on my character and please believe I leaned from all of those matches(I tried dif stages, etc). I now see that if you all keep the infinite legal what I need to do is get a percent lead or stock lead and run the whole time. Instead of taking the easy route and switching to mk our a character that can gay him back, I will adapt.

That is the heart of a true warrior. When you lose a fight are you going to go back to the gym and train? No you all for infinites will go and grab guns and shoot the person who beat u up lol.

That is my main argument. Do you all want to drive the community towards that? Running away the whole time. If so...that is fine and that is what I will do. I'm trying to say we need to do what is best for the community. Play wise and spectator wise which leads to better things for our game.

If we wanted to avoid people from running away with the percent lead, we'd have to ban MK, Wario, Pikachu, TL, ROB , Pit, Sonic, and Jiggly puff tbh

I think it's a brawl wide phenomenon, and not character specific. There really isn't anyway around it that I can think of.

 

[Mekos]

People don't run away from ice climbers the whole game. They wait for an opportunity to approach safely. Seperate baby sis and go for the kill. I'm talking about sonic running away yall. lol. Any player who can get infinited, running away is there best option. The whole time tho.

I'm not just talking about infinites against lucas. I think all standing infinites(including dk's on lucas/ness) should be banned.

Also, that is not my only argument, it's just I see how yall rebuttle the skill argument so there is no point in bringing that up. Yall as TO's and backroom members are supposed to be thinking about what is best for the community and competitive scene. That is why I plead my case. And I like how noone rebuttled my gun analogy. That was sexy!

@delux - yer kinda flipping the script with yer argument. That is not the same. Saying ban characters that run away? that is not the argument at all.

@Kewkky - Love yer statement. With that logic MK DEF shouldn't be banned. I sure hope you are anti-ban with yer train of thought lol.

 

[Player-1]

That gun analogy has nothing to do with what we're talking about...

And actually people do run away against ICs most of the time....


I love your statement as well mekos. With that logic MK DEF should be banned. I hope you are pro-ban with yer train of thought. Go watch any M2K match after he loses and all he does is run away and promotes camping and the community doesn't want to see that either.

 

[Mekos]

haha love it! This community is more M2k ban than Metaknight ban!
But that is a different topic!

 

[Ghostbone]

And I like how noone rebuttled my gun analogy. That was sexy!

The gun analogy wasn't entirely accurate.
A better analogy would be, you're in a gun fight and you didn't bring a gun, and you expect other people to not be using guns, and you're surprised when you're shot.
Ridiculous.

haha love it! This community is more M2k ban than Metaknight ban!
But that is a different topic!

Shows your lack of understanding of pro-ban.

 

[Kewkky]

@Kewkky - Love yer statement. With that logic MK DEF shouldn't be banned. I sure hope you are anti-ban with yer train of thought lol.

Hmm...

Well if he says he can beat them then I guess they shouldn't be banned, right? I mean, why ban something that is both character-specific and beatable?

You're right, I forgot MK was a character-specific problem. Thanks for pointing it out.



Steer clear from the MK topic, it has nothing to do with the OP. We're talking about infinites, high-damage combos, locks, cg's, and grab releases.

 

[Arcansi]

tons of stuff

This should have been up earlier, but my internet connection decided to drop as I left for dinner. Will reply to the rest either now or tomorrow, internet being wonky.

4)Your logic IS opinion. You're saying that your ideas are logical, when they're clearly ideas you've created from a base, according to how you believe the game should be played. If your ideas truly are facts, then give me a more in-depth example of how your views of "competitiveness" are the logical choice to follow, besides a definition from a dictionary. Like I said before, dictionaries don't have much depth to them, they just scrape the tip of the iceberg, so you're going to need more prof if you want to change the status quo.

Ok, so apparently words aren't going to be enough. What other proof would you suggest I provide?

1) Not enough for me to make a reply.
2)Did I say experience? Or did I say "experience and education"? Stop removing parts of my sentences to fit your arguments, please.

1. Ok

2. Sorry.

Experience AND education make for some very well-educated opinions. Like for example, scientific laws. They start as ideas and/or opinions, then testing leads for them to be considered fact. Galileo Galilei's ideas of heliocentrism were seen as blasphemy back in his days, as an opinion that was so wrong they forced him into house arrest for the rest of his life, literally unable to leave his house unless for medical reasons. He was well-educated, hence where his theory came from. His opinion turned into a fact later on down the road, where they agreed that the planets did revolve around the Sun. But wait, later in 1920 Edwin Hubble showed that the sun wasn't the center of the universe, but was part of a galaxy, in which the universe had billions more! Facts are facts unless proven otherwise with powerful, irrefutable proof. Opinions are each person's personal beliefs, for better or for worse. But like I was trying to say, well-educated opinions hold MUCH more ground than simple opinions, and well-educated is what some of us are.

I am too. I may not be as educated as you in certain things, but in most everything I take part in, I have at least a reasonable amount of education.

Experience and education does this, while experience or education do not. Theorizing is just as bad as saying "well I've been doing this for 10 years so I'm right and you're wrong!", but saying "I've been doing this for 10 years thanks to studying XYZ and coming to a conclusion on how this works" is completely different. And like my point at the start of this, those of us who are still here replying to you honestly have actual experience and education on these topics.

I have experience, and education. You guys just wouldn't accept it and I know that.

I read what you say. Me coming in here to make huge replies, only to be told "you didn't read", is like a slap to the face. Maybe YOU should explain things better? I'm replying to exactly what I'm reading and understanding, I'm not the one to blame here.

Okay. (Note, this thread has reached a high level of stupidity, not being the fault of any of the actual debaters in here. It may have made my tolerance for normal things less then usual, sorry.)

You're the one with burden of proof. You're the one who wants to change the status quo. Prove that your ideas are better for competition than our current system.

Matchups closer to 50/50 are better for competitive play because they measure skill more efficiently.

Looks like you're the one who has to learn what burden of proof exactly is. It's not just "support your ideas". Why should I support mine, when my proof is all around you? You want youtube videos of Brawl matches? You want me to link you to threads? You can access them yourself, they literally are everywhere. However, your proof is nowhere to be found. Where is your proof that your idea is better for Brawl's competitive value?

In the words I'm typing here. Matchups closer to 50/50 are better for competitive play because they measure skill more efficiently. Right?

Whoa whoa whoa, what is THIS? You're coming into a discussion with a claim you haven't checked? If anything, you should check it first and find out that it is right BEFORE using the definition!

I come from somewhere different then most of this community. If my definition is unfit, I will change it until it is fit if I see fit, in order to better be able to represent myself. This is not a bad thing.

Which brings me to this next point: Prove that they remove potential interactions within a matchup. If by that you mean, instead of X character doing 1 grab and the stock is over, X and Y characters now have to hit each other lots of times for the stock to be over, then you'd be right. However, this is no different than having the infinite allowed, except that now you removed one option from X character, hindering depth. Whether or not the infinite is allowed, both characters have the option to hit each other as many times as they would need to kill each other.

I removed one option from character X, giving character Y more viable options, while also making the matchup more balanced.

Character X also now has more reasons to find more tactics and get better overall because this was removed.

And it's not like the infinites are easy to do, you seem to not understand that part. If you can go up to a top Ness player while you're using Marth, grab him AND do the infinite and win every time you do so, then I'll agree that I might be wrong. But if you can't even do that, considering you're implying that they're too powerful in those matchups, then they're not something you need to worry about.

The top Marth player can probably do this. Note that it almost doesn't matter wether he can or not, it's that the possibility exists. If there was some random combination of buttons that caused you to win the game, took 10 seconds to implement and was changed every game, would it be broken? Yes. Would it be reliable? No.

... Which leads back to ICs. Why were you so reluctant to leaving HIS infinites intact, when his infinites are far easier to setup than others (compare their CGs to laserlocks), far easier to execute than others (compare their CGs to single naner locks), and work on far more characters than others (compare their CGs to DDD's standing infinites)? They 1-up every other infinite out there in everything. It seems silly to even consider banning all infinites and leaving theirs legal. You already agreed to banning them, but I just want you to know that it was a very silly thing to say.

There comes a point where balance is no longer acceptable due to it negatively impacting the game as a whole. It is my opinion this threshold is not reached by balancing the IC's (my threshold for this is probably insanely high, however. I think the fighting game scenes threshold for this is extremely low, though.) however, it would appear to impact the community a lot more then is necessary. Because of this, I opted to leave it out.

Which reminds me, didn't you say that your opinion was logical back then? Why did you change it to ban more things then? Was your logic not logical enough? Why would you need to alter a logical conclusion if it's logical in the first place?

How about this: With infinites and horrible MUs comes the obligation to get better. You have X horrible MU with your character, and you want to main your character only. You have to find a way to make the MU easier, so you start learning the ins and outs of that match-up. You learn things that you normally wouldnt've ever learned if you would've just picked a character who had a more balanced MU with X horrible MU.

With anyone being better then you comes the obligation to get better. You can't beat X player, and you want to. You have to find a way to make beating him easier, so you start learning the ins and outs of his playstyle. Your learn things that you normally would've ever learned if you would've just had an infinite to use on X player.

With infinites banned and character playstyles regulated to a large extent, all characters would have a more balanced MU roster. However, where's the reason to improve as much now? You don't need to go hardcore in-depth with your practice now, since all MUs are 'balanced'. You just made it so that a part of the metagame that could've been explored would never be allowed to be explored or used. Could you imagine if X character who was always beaten out of tournaments by Y character would've found a combination of moves that work on the entire cast and shifts all of his MUs +2? Now THAT is some amazing progress! But now that we have banned infinites and high-damaging combos, there was no need to explore to that point in the first place, and even if someone did explore, their discovery wouldn't matter because it would fall under the rule along with the other 'banned infinites and combos'.

Not looking at regulating character playstyles. Looking at making nothing too dominant anywhere. Reason to improve? To beat those who are better then you. Nobody better then you? To keep your spot as the best. You still need to go in-depth, you just don't need to find (most of the time) unreasonable ways to make up for a huge disadvantage. Not banning them, limiting them. Also not looking at banning combos that aren't 0-deaths. I never said a new discovery should fall under the rule, as it shouldn't. (except in cases like nanner lock). I can argue that the character would've found the combination of moves eventually anyway due to the fact of common sense telling you what will hit when, and people needing to improve to get better.

You really DID cut down the depth of the game by removing such things. We can never know when we've hit the bottom of the barrel in these types of games until the metagame stagnates and nothing new happens in years. But by then, we'll have developed such a nice metagame that the fun is now in simply playing the game and mastering the many techniques we've found through its lifetime. Why would you want to stop something like this from happening?

Because I don't find a metagame where ganon is simply unusable for competitive play and people can lose games while still being more skilled then the opponent nice.

Not at all. Why do you?

Grammar doesn't invalidate an argument. Don't apologize for silly things.

I don't even know what to say here. I'm doing my best to be as nice as possible and I get this.

You haven't proven a single thing! All you're doing is reiterating the same points over and over again, you have no proof whatsoever! Do you even know what proof is like? Proof is undeniable, but so far we have been denying the stuff you write. Why don't you try something more unarguable, like oh say, run a tournament with your rules? You could prove two things with that: If people are willing to try a metagame with a very big ruleset telling them how NOT to play the game, and if the metagame is actually balanced from the results of your tournament.

I am currently physically unable to run a tournament due to my place of residence. Else I would've already.

At the time of posting, I had proven myself. At time of posting, I will have again.

You're the one with the burden of proof. You're the one who has to provide something persuasive to change the status quo. The status quo doesn't have to defend itself unless there's something they really should defend, and right now, all you have is paragraphs explaining your ideas as "the only logical conclusion".

Where I come from, the simple proof that it removes competitive depth and the game would be more balanced without it is about as persuasive as it gets, barring it actually ruining other players experience (which, in retrospect, it does).

Like others said before me, if all you want is a more balanced Brawl game, here's a link to information about Balanced Brawl. I implore you, check it out. It is EXACTLY what you want, but it is not what we want.

This would be a cool compromise if BBrawl was as big as vBrawl. It isn't. It's an amazing game and I am extremely happy with it, but I won't ever be able to play it on such a scale as vBrawl, unfortunately.

People think they should be able to stay one character the whole time. This is how Arcansi and Mekos think. While I have no problem with this line of thinking, because to some degrees it does make sense (means the game is well balanced), I do have a problem with them saying their way of thinking is more competitive. I think that if Arcansi is unwilling to admit his view of competition is just an opinion (a non-educated/experienced opinion at that), we should just close this thread. Maybe once Arcansi becomes more experienced with this game, he'll see where we're coming from.

I'm fine with character changes being an integral part of the game. I'm not against characters countering certain other characters and such.

The way I see it is like this.

You and I have a set of blocks each. My blocks are new and shiny and pretty much untouched, while yours are old and have chips on many of the corners.

If we were to have a block stacking competition with my block set, everything would be fair.

If we were to have one with yours, whoever's blocks had more c hips would be at a disadvantage, ranging from nearly none to unwinnable.

I don't look forward to this, but you do.

I still don't really understand why.

Note that(assuming everyones view of competition is an opinion) mine simply stems from a different root then yours. One that you guys probably don't as fully understand as me, but one that is just as competitive as yours nonetheless.

Arc- I don't understand how your rebuttal does anything to comment on my statement.

I don't understand how I'm supposed to. I mean I could do some odd psychological BS and talk to you about ethics and such but I'm pretty sure you know all this stuff already. I fail to understand why you would want to replay something that has been done to you (lgl) and is still hated by pretty much everyone, but I can't change it.

As for me, it kills time.

I learn tons of stuff from this thread.

 

[Mekos]

It seems that all the people in the Back room think the same way. I may be wrong but It seems yall mostly arguing for the same side. Yall need people with different opinions back there. Pretty crazy that not one of yall is against this stuff.

 

[SKidd]

This whole thread needs a tl;dr

 

[Player-1]

It seems that all the people in the Back room think the same way. I may be wrong but It seems yall mostly arguing for the same side. Yall need people with different opinions back there. Pretty crazy that not one of yall is against this stuff.

not our fault, anyone can apply that has ran a tournament with unity, also pretty sure there are people that are against it or on the fence about it.

 

[Kewkky]

The best proof would be to hold a tournament and have players come and play. Even simply designing your own ruleset and putting it out for the community to see would be enough, considering the community will only adopt what they see as most competitive. If your ruleset looks good and people admire your idea, they will give it a try. If it doesn't look fun at all, then they'll never use it and keep on playing this game.

The bad side of this is that you'll probably be ridiculed by the trolls in the website, as well as the non-trolls who dislike it. But hey, that's what comes with going against the status quo. Nobody's ever posed a counter-argument to a setting everyone's comfortable with and gotten away without being on blast.

I don't even know what to say here. I'm doing my best to be as nice as possible and I get this.

I didn't mean for that to sound like an insult. I'm just saying, thinking that your grammar affects your argument's message is a silly way of thinking, there's not really a need to apologize for something insignificant like that. :\

This would be a cool compromise if BBrawl was as big as vBrawl. It isn't. It's an amazing game and I am extremely happy with it, but I won't ever be able to play it on such a scale as vBrawl, unfortunately.

There's three reasons why it never became popular.

1) It's a mod, and not everyone wants to mod their Wii. Pretty self-explanatory.

2) People don't want to get used to BBrawl then come back to vBrawl only to play like crap. Getting used to the lack of combos in that mod, then coming back to a metagame where they do exist, you'll find yourself adapting all over again to vBrawl's unaltered gameplay. Pretty self-explanatory too.

3) The majority of people don't like the balanced outcome. We all like Brawl for what it is and what it brings. Bad MUs make for some very hyped tournament sets, and bring lots of discussion to the community. Constantly finding ways for your character to do better against your opponent is a main reason as to why SWF is here in the first place. A game that is perfectly balanced and restricted does not bring a lot of discussion with it, what is there to discuss that will change the metagame? All MUs are balanced, the tier list won't change, the MU Chart won't change, advice from player to player on how to play X MU will be the same... If anything changes in the game that would give your character a large advantage, like a discovery of another heavy hitting combo or some very effective chain that works at any % and together does ~60% damage, it is banned to maintain the balance. Where's the fun of exploring the game? It's all balanced now, all that's left to do is to just play the same metagame from now until we get bored of it and leave for another game.

I know that's how I feel. I like normal Brawl with all its infinites. Watching a Donkey Kong beat a DDD in a tournament match, even when it's a stage DDD gets a bigger advantage in (seriously, what's worse than unwinnable?), is soooo much hype!

I'm fine with character changes being an integral part of the game. I'm not against characters countering certain other characters and such.

But then, if characters counter each other, it's not a balanced metagame anymore, is it? Player who mains X character will still have a noticeable advantage over Y character, making it so that we still change our characters to have a higher chance at winning. Doesn't this seem counterproductive to player skill, according to your arguments?

It seems that all the people in the Back room think the same way. I may be wrong but It seems yall mostly arguing for the same side. Yall need people with different opinions back there. Pretty crazy that not one of yall is against this stuff.

Maybe it's because when people are accepted and debate for a while with us, their perspectives change? Not many BBR members post out here regularly, they either post in the BBR forums or in their respective communities (and the occasional guys who go to forum games).

 

[Ghostbone]

Matchups closer to 50/50 are better for competitive play because they measure skill more efficiently.

First of all, how so? Messing around with the rules so we're no longer playing Brawl certainly doesn't test the skills required to win at Brawl.

In the words I'm typing here. Matchups closer to 50/50 are better for competitive play because they measure skill more efficiently. Right?

See above.
Also, you're assuming that every player can only play one character, if a Lucas player needs to have a secondary, that would require more skill from that player correct? Plus we would actually be testing the skills that Brawl, the game we're supposed to be playing, tests, not the skills your made up game tests.

The top Marth player can probably do this. Note that it almost doesn't matter wether he can or not, it's that the possibility exists. If there was some random combination of buttons that caused you to win the game, took 10 seconds to implement and was changed every game, would it be broken? Yes. Would it be reliable? No.

Not understanding the point of this.

Which reminds me, didn't you say that your opinion was logical back then? Why did you change it to ban more things then? Was your logic not logical enough? Why would you need to alter a logical conclusion if it's logical in the first place?

Just so you know, something can be logical and still be wrong, because the premises may be wrong.

With anyone being better then you comes the obligation to get better. You can't beat X player, and you want to. You have to find a way to make beating him easier, so you start learning the ins and outs of his playstyle. Your learn things that you normally would've ever learned if you would've just had an infinite to use on X player.

Only if player X is too lazy to learn ways around the infinite.

Because I don't find a metagame where ganon is simply unusable for competitive play and people can lose games while still being more skilled then the opponent nice.

Again, wrong definition of skill.
You're being a textbook scrub, the game knows not of your definition of skill, it only knows of winning and losing.
If you lose, your opponent is more skilled than you.

The way I see it is like this.

You and I have a set of blocks each. My blocks are new and shiny and pretty much untouched, while yours are old and have chips on many of the corners.

If we were to have a block stacking competition with my block set, everything would be fair.

If we were to have one with yours, whoever's blocks had more c hips would be at a disadvantage, ranging from nearly none to unwinnable.

This doesn't make any sense, nobody is being forced to use chipped blocks, and if we were to follow your analogy, the only way to make things even is for everybody to be forced to use the same blocks, applying this to Brawl, we would only be allowed to play dittos.

-Replied to stuff I felt was important enough to reply to....

 

[Flayl]

BBrawl isn't very good, dunno why people keep hyping it as the next coming of Brawl... Maybe if they actually balanced the game instead of half-assing it and changing stuff characters don't need to change but don't do anything about what makes them bad.

 

[Ghostbone]

BBrawl isn't very good, dunno why people keep hyping it as the next coming of Brawl... Maybe if they actually balanced the game instead of half-assing it and changing stuff characters don't need to change but don't do anything about what makes them bad.

It's still more balanced than Brawl
-shrug-

 

[ElDominio]

3) The majority of people don't like the balanced outcome. We all like Brawl for what it is and what it brings. Bad MUs make for some very hyped tournament sets, and bring lots of discussion to the community. Constantly finding ways for your character to do better against your opponent is a main reason as to why SWF is here in the first place. A game that is perfectly balanced and restricted does not bring a lot of discussion with it, what is there to discuss that will change the metagame? All MUs are balanced, the tier list won't change, the MU Chart won't change, advice from player to player on how to play X MU will be the same... If anything changes in the game that would give your character a large advantage, like a discovery of another heavy hitting combo or some very effective chain that works at any % and together does ~60% damage, it is banned to maintain the balance. Where's the fun of exploring the game? It's all balanced now, all that's left to do is to just play the same metagame from now until we get bored of it and leave for another game.

I know that's how I feel. I like normal Brawl with all its infinites. Watching a Donkey Kong beat a DDD in a tournament match, even when it's a stage DDD gets a bigger advantage in (seriously, what's worse than unwinnable?), is soooo much hype!

I'm calling out BPC on this one.

This is exactly how I feel about B-

The only biased matchup left in that mod is Bowser vs MK

 

[B.A.M.]

Hey lets all call Capcom and tell them Third Strike is a terrible excuse for a competitive fighting game because Sean is nonviable.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

this thread
is so ****ing dumb
i dont even
what

 

[DeLux]

This thread is awesome

Every time I go to a smashfest now, I will cite this thread as a reason to rage quit every time I get heavily combo'd by my opponent.

I even do that in tourney on my opponent's CP now if I won game 1. Ask anyone I've played in the midwest recently if you don't believe me.

 

[Ussi]

So um I thought of another thing...




what about marth's 0-death on a few characters? Like fthrow > fthrow > dair at 0%, that's a 0-death no? XD

something like that works on Falco i think

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Jigglypuff can 0 > death Diddy Kong.

 

[Ussi]

everyone can 0-death diddy kong, and everyone gets 0-death by diddy kong as well

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Puff has a method other than the SNL.

 

[-LzR-]

I don't think she has.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Downward Banana throw > Nair > Banana Slip > Dash Attack > Banana slip > Bair > Banana slip > Dair > Rest

 

[-LzR-]

I really doubt that works. Even the dair to rest part only works 30% of the time so it makes it even more unreliable.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You doubt it works, eh?

And Dair > Rest works 100% of the time if they don't SDI.

 

[WindMajor]

That's pretty cool, not gonna lie. That looks like something that takes a lot of skill to finally pull off, so I hope it wouldn't get banned under Arcansi's criteria.

 

[Ussi]

That requires FD's length of a stage and proper spacing, too situational but still its a 50%+ combo

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I DON'T CARE

I PLAN TO FOLLOW THIS RULESET AND I WANT TO KNOW IF I CAN DO IT OR NOT

caaaaaaaps

 

[Stealth Raptor]

also SDI makes that combo not actually work LOL

 

[-LzR-]

You doubt it works, eh?

And Dair > Rest works 100% of the time if they don't SDI.

Everyone uses SDI so it works on no one. Yay yay.

 

[B.A.M.]

^^^^shhh. I dont know how to SDI and I want this combo banned. In fact I die from Falco's CG all the time because my SDI is good. Can we ban any dair combos from Fox too? I mean really? dair>usmash is too strong. I guess that means we would have to take away MK's uair string> nado. its so unfair. oh and Shuttle Loop. It shouldnt kill me at zero when im hanging on the ledge.

Mario shouldnt be able to cape. I heard its a zero to death on MK.

 

[Zankoku]

This thread is getting dumb. Arcansi may request for an unlock if he feels that there is more to discuss.

 

[Arcansi]

THREAD OPENED! DISCUSSION GO!

NOTE: Sorry about not posting for a while. People like B.A.M. don't make posting here enticing sometimes. I will try to keep up on this in the future, however.

And we're back on the air!

All right then, humor me. Where's your proof that the game, with all that you want banned, is a better game than the current one? The burden of proof is on you, since you want to change the status quo. All you've been saying ever since you started arguing about infinites/0>deaths/high-damage combos is that it is uncompetitive. Well what made you come to that conclusion? Is a balanced Brawl better than the current Brawl even if it cuts down on a lot of the competitive depth? How do you know this?

Burden of proof, like you said.

It only adds competitive depth by making the skill difference needed less, and it is more balanced because more matchup ratios are closer to 50/50 overall. Prove me wrong.

Man, it's like you are unable to understand what I'm saying. How can you expect someone to defend something, if that someone is against that something in the first place? LGL should never have happened and it should be removed. But as long as MK isn't banned, the ones who forced the rule on us will keep it there. And just like how LGL never should've happened, your rules should never happen. They are detrimental to the game.

I expect you to defend it because it exists, and it exists on your side.

You may not want it there, and you may not like it, but hey, I have things that're like that too for me. Only difference is I don't complain, I overcome.

Logic without opinions, hm? Let's see...

Everyone has to use the same character on their match. If player 1 uses Snake, player 2 has to use Snake. This makes the game more balanced, when the player and the opponent have exactly the same tools. It all comes down to player skill now, no MU discrepancies, no 'unfair' advantage for one character, no stage advantage for either as they both are now on equal grounds... Do you agree or disagree?

This is fair, yes. What I don't understand is how it's relevant.

Well, I guess my point is completely invalid now. You pointing out that I used a hyperbole on a part that was exchangeable with many other phrases makes my entire argument moot.

Actually, I posted a hyperbole and you responded to it as if it was literal.

-_-

I'll try and say it in another way then. Infinites are uncompetitive in your personal ruleset. To you and your vision of how Brawl should be played, they are uncompetitive. To us and how we think Brawl should be played, they are completely fine and don't deter from what the game truly is.

Can you go more in-depth with this, please? I can't derive much from it as it is.

1) If 90% of dictionaries say something and the other 10% say something else, like for example that apples are vegetables, they are wrong and not considered dictionaries. They could be satire versions, but not actual diccionaries. If they were trying to be real and have wrong definitions, the publishers wouldn't be allowed to sell their book, unless they put out specifically that it was satire. And even if they did print the book out, it would be infamous for being wrong and whoever would make a review about that dictionary would simply not recommend it, pretty much destroying its whole reason for being a dictionary, to help people understand words.

2) No, it doesn't make it an opinion, but it does make it wrong. You can't argue against apples being fruit, they are fruits and it is an unarguable fact. The definition of what the term 'fruit' represents applies to apples, while the definition of the term 'vegetable' does not. It wouldn't be an opinion, it would simply be a lie. If someone truly believed that, he'd be living a lie. If someone truly believed 2+2=5, he'd be living a lie.

3) It's because dictionaries don't go in-depth with what they define. They just scrape the tip of the iceberg when talking about ideology. Competition is an idea that, while all of us agree on some parts, it eventually boils down to our beliefs of what competition really is. The definition you posted has that part we all agree on, but it doesn't give us anything else. What you're arguing for in this thread is not "competitive" with our collective idea of what competition is, but only with yours from what I can see.

I don't see how evening matchups clashes with your definition of competition. Can you explain this to me?

The best proof would be to hold a tournament and have players come and play. Even simply designing your own ruleset and putting it out for the community to see would be enough, considering the community will only adopt what they see as most competitive. If your ruleset looks good and people admire your idea, they will give it a try. If it doesn't look fun at all, then they'll never use it and keep on playing this game.

The bad side of this is that you'll probably be ridiculed by the trolls in the website, as well as the non-trolls who dislike it. But hey, that's what comes with going against the status quo. Nobody's ever posed a counter-argument to a setting everyone's comfortable with and gotten away without being on blast.

Almost nobody seemed to even consider it here, no matter how informed they were on it. Along with the fact that I would achieve an optimal ruleset step by step, I have a very low chance of actually succeeding with such(and you know it, not due to anything I can really control) and I don't even have enough data too.

Of course, I could probably get infinites banned at a tourney, that is doable. Unfortunately, it's going to be a WHILE before I can do this, due to my limited range of influence(and the multitude of things I want changed, but that's another story).

I didn't mean for that to sound like an insult. I'm just saying, thinking that your grammar affects your argument's message is a silly way of thinking, there's not really a need to apologize for something insignificant like that. :\

Some people would post against me because I have bad grammar (I'm looking at you, skidd).

There's three reasons why it never became popular.

1) It's a mod, and not everyone wants to mod their Wii. Pretty self-explanatory.

Dang behind the times people. D:

2) People don't want to get used to BBrawl then come back to vBrawl only to play like crap. Getting used to the lack of combos in that mod, then coming back to a metagame where they do exist, you'll find yourself adapting all over again to vBrawl's unaltered gameplay. Pretty self-explanatory too.

I find this false. When I used to play both Brawl- and vBrawl, minus a transition of getting used to minus, the 'jet lag' you speak of simply didn't exist. At all.

3) The majority of people don't like the balanced outcome. We all like Brawl for what it is and what it brings. Bad MUs make for some very hyped tournament sets, and bring lots of discussion to the community. Constantly finding ways for your character to do better against your opponent is a main reason as to why SWF is here in the first place. A game that is perfectly balanced and restricted does not bring a lot of discussion with it, what is there to discuss that will change the metagame? All MUs are balanced, the tier list won't change, the MU Chart won't change, advice from player to player on how to play X MU will be the same... If anything changes in the game that would give your character a large advantage, like a discovery of another heavy hitting combo or some very effective chain that works at any % and together does ~60% damage, it is banned to maintain the balance. Where's the fun of exploring the game? It's all balanced now, all that's left to do is to just play the same metagame from now until we get bored of it and leave for another game.

Discussion exists in a perfectly balanced game. (Even though we would never achieve one.) The fun is in playing the game? I don't really know what your saying other then there's no discussion, which there is. Yes, discovering new combos is fun, and I never said it should be banned on the spot, either.

I know that's how I feel. I like normal Brawl with all its infinites. Watching a Donkey Kong beat a DDD in a tournament match, even when it's a stage DDD gets a bigger advantage in (seriously, what's worse than unwinnable?), is soooo much hype!

I forget what the actual term is, but I would actually tell you straight up you don't if you wouldn't flip tables no matter how much evidence I gave you.

You just remember those hype matches. You don't remember or never watched all the times that a DK just got infinited and lost. Human Nature.

But then, if characters counter each other, it's not a balanced metagame anymore, is it? Player who mains X character will still have a noticeable advantage over Y character, making it so that we still change our characters to have a higher chance at winning. Doesn't this seem counterproductive to player skill, according to your arguments?

Choosing a character is part of the game. Just right now, the part that it represents is both noting and everything, in context. This is something that should be changed.

First of all, how so? Messing around with the rules so we're no longer playing Brawl certainly doesn't test the skills required to win at Brawl.

You aren't playing brawl. LGL, Surgical rules, and Sudden Death rule all prove this.

See above.
Also, you're assuming that every player can only play one character, if a Lucas player needs to have a secondary, that would require more skill from that player correct? Plus we would actually be testing the skills that Brawl, the game we're supposed to be playing, tests, not the skills your made up game tests.

See above. Also, your assuming that I don't want people to play more then one character. If a Lucas player can only play lucas, I'm fine with him getting ***** by marth. What I'm not fine with is him having literally no chance, espicially in double blind scnarios. Note that we aren't even testing the skills Brawl wants us to test.

Not understanding the point of this.

Situational != Not Broken

Just so you know, something can be logical and still be wrong, because the premises may be wrong.

Ok.

Only if player X is too lazy to learn ways around the infinite.

You mean player Y(or some other number. Player X was the one who would get infinited.)

Note that you would only need to learn how to do the infinite through his ways around it, not anything else.

Again, wrong definition of skill.
You're being a textbook scrub, the game knows not of your definition of skill, it only knows of winning and losing.
If you lose, your opponent is more skilled than you.

If you lose, you lost. If your opponent is more skilled then you, he is more skilled then you.

These are not mutually inclusive. If you need to take a dump really badly and lose because of it, your opponent is not necissarily more skilled then you.

This doesn't make any sense, nobody is being forced to use chipped blocks, and if we were to follow your analogy, the only way to make things even is for everybody to be forced to use the same blocks, applying this to Brawl, we would only be allowed to play dittos.

Blocks of the same quality*

That's pretty cool, not gonna lie. That looks like something that takes a lot of skill to finally pull off, so I hope it wouldn't get banned under Arcansi's criteria.

New discovery = Not Banned. Needs testing on and against. If you can actually SDI it there's pretty much no reason to ban it.

I DON'T CARE

I PLAN TO FOLLOW THIS RULESET AND I WANT TO KNOW IF I CAN DO IT OR NOT

caaaaaaaps

You Can.

This thread is awesome

Every time I go to a smashfest now, I will cite this thread as a reason to rage quit every time I get heavily combo'd by my opponent.

I even do that in tourney on my opponent's CP now if I won game 1. Ask anyone I've played in the midwest recently if you don't believe me.

Following rules that don't actually exist as of yet.

Highly unrecommended by me.

 

[DeLux]

Arcansi, why would you flame me when I've been openly citing your opinion as expert testimony and following your guidance to both the letter and spirit of the law?

that's uncalled for and unnecessary

Note: He unflamed me

 

[infiniteV115]

You may have answered these questions already (I haven't read through the posts, I stopped shortly after your response to my post on page 3) so if you have, just quote the answer.

The matchups, in a competitive game, should all be even, to allow for perfect competition.

You're going to have to explain this. You haven't provided any reasoning as to why (all MUs are 50:50 or close to 50:50) is better than (MUs vary). To me, this is more like a limitation on the players (what if somebody WANTS the challenge of fighting from a disadvantage?), and a lack of diversity. Furthermore, by this logic, you should extremely pro-conversative stagelists, right? I mean, stages such as Brinstar, RC, FD, Frigate, Delfino, Norfair, etc can skew MUs quite heavily, can't they? If you're fine with those skewing MUs that are already even, why are you not ok with MUs being uneven in the first place?

I want to remove [character strengths and weaknesses] 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!"

See above. And like above, you need to provide reasoning for your claims other than "I have yet to see an argument against this". It's called the burden of proof.

I am really getting sick of people complaining about infinites and cgs and things of the like. They are intrinsic to Brawl, aren't glitches, and are a result of the game's design. Deal with it. It's not that hard to avoid getting grabbed. If you can't deal with things that are naturally present in this game, don't play this game.

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, why would you flame me when I've been openly citing your opinion as expert testimony and following your guidance to both the letter and spirit of the law?

I'm not flaming you. I'm defining you.

You may have answered these questions already (I haven't read through the posts, I stopped shortly after your response to my post on page 3) so if you have, just quote the answer.

They're easy enough to answer that I'll just type it.

You're going to have to explain this. You haven't provided any reasoning as to why (all MUs are 50:50 or close to 50:50) is better than (MUs vary). To me, this is more like a limitation on the players (what if somebody WANTS the challenge of fighting from a disadvantage?), and a lack of diversity. Furthermore, by this logic, you should extremely pro-conversative stagelists, right? I mean, stages such as Brinstar, RC, FD, Frigate, Delfino, Norfair, etc can skew MUs quite heavily, can't they? If you're fine with those skewing MUs that are already even, why are you not ok with MUs being uneven in the first place?

1. Matchups that are as close to 50:50 as possible allow for more skill definition and less 'He won because his options lead into/are better stuff then mine, even though I landed more and dodged more then him overall'. A.K.A. The player with more overall skill won't lose where he might have before. This is better for competition for reasons such as not needing people to pick high tiers to win (more character diversity, increases game lifespan, audience, and fun).

2. Assuming the first stage doesn't influence matchups by anything more then 5%, the counterpick system is extremely balanced when implemented correctly and a core feature that allows Brawl to have hype, espicially in matches where the two players skill is close. I see no reason for it to be removed, espicially when the player with more skill will win anyway if the matchup is 50/50
See above. And like above, you need to provide reasoning for your claims other than "I have yet to see an argument against this". It's called the burden of proof.

I am really getting sick of people complaining about infinites and cgs and things of the like. They are intrinsic to Brawl, aren't glitches, and are a result of the game's design. Deal with it. It's not that hard to avoid getting grabbed. If you can't deal with things that are naturally present in this game, don't play this game.

Note that I don't want them banned, just limited.

 

[Zankoku]

Following rules that don't actually exist as of yet.

I believe this is the technical definition of a scrub.

I think setting rules that don't exist yet is the only way to break the status quo, so it's somewhat backwards to insult the notion of doing so.

Note that I don't want them banned, just limited.

Note that limiting entire chunks of what makes a match-up the way it is will not necessarily make them closer to 50:50. In 2008, the only important chaingrab we really had was Dedede's, and nobody really pulled off sick unavoidable combos in tournament. Yet even then, there were clear good characters and clear terrible ones. Taking out what we've discovered since then would, theoretically, simply shift the metagame right back into the past.