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

[Ussi]

Ganon has a 50%+ Combo in dair > dair > aerial

is that limited?

 

[DeLux]

IF YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO BE INSULTING, EDIT YOUR POST


Note: He edited his post

 

[Arcansi]

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.

I didn't mean to insult him. Scrubs can be good for a community, although they are normally not well-received.

Although, the notion of implementing rules inside your head is laughable, in my opinion.

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.

I'm not taking it out, just making it so it isn't as game-defining.

We shouldn't shift back at all.

Ganon has a 50%+ Combo in dair > dair > aerial

is that limited?

No. Unless there is outstanding reason for it to be.

If I'm not mistaken, in an effort to flame me, he called his own ruleset scrubby :\



IF YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO BE INSULTING, EDIT YOUR POST

Done.

 

[Zankoku]

Newbies are good for a community. Scrubs just complain.

 

[DeLux]

It just seemed strange to me that everyone I played with said that I was wrong when I told them that they weren't allowed to combo me for more than 50%

They told ME that I was the one being anti competitive by rage quitting/DQing them when they did it.

 

[Arcansi]

It just seemed strange to me that everyone I played with said that I was wrong when I told them that they weren't allowed to combo me for more than 50%

They told ME that I was the one being anti competitive by rage quitting/DQing them when they did it.

Trying to change the Status Quo.

It aint easy.

 

[DeLux]

They also told me if I weren't overwhelmingly horrendously bad, I could have prevented the combos from happening

I tried explaining it wasn't as simple as that and pointed out that my main (Lucas, see my post bit), simply can't avoid it no matter what my skill level is.

 

[Arcansi]

They also told me if I weren't overwhelmingly horrendously bad, I could have prevented the combos from happening

I tried explaining it wasn't as simple as that and pointed out that my main (Lucas, see my post bit), simply can't avoid it no matter what my skill level is.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how your personal experiences in a non-cooperative environment are relevant.

 

[DeLux]

You're supposed to help me show them the light of your logic


They told me Lucas is bad and it's my fault for picking him

 

[Arcansi]

You're supposed to help me show them the light of your logic


They told me Lucas is bad and it's my fault for picking him

They're normal people who don't see any reason for the status quo to change and aren't giving you a chance.

Ask them why the matchup shouldn't be closer to 50/50

 

[DeLux]

But they combo'd me 50+ with nearly every character :\

 

[Arcansi]

But they combo'd me 50+ with nearly every character :\

Most of those combos weren't garaunteed.

Practice against them.

 

[DeLux]

So you're telling me to get better in order to avoid those combos?

Ok, I'll get to work on it

 

[Mekos]

you guys are a joke the way yer debating Arch. Yer going way off topic and comparing things that aren't even close to a standing infinite and being sarcastic. ]

Arch my pal u might just need to leave this one alone. It seems like all if them on the panel think the same on this one. Apex will be the greatest tourney ever and the TO alex is banning it. He knows how to run a tourney with good rules. Just go to Apex

I appreciate yer effort but they honestly don't seem to be trying to see it from your view point. I just wanted to say thanks.

 

[Player-1]

Mekos, we see it from his point of view and it's still wrong, try seeing it from ours.

 

[Arcansi]

Thanks Mekos.

I wonder if Apex being run using this is enough testing for most people...

Mekos, we see it from his point of view and it's still wrong, try seeing it from ours.

You? I don't think so, based on your posts. I could be wrong, but I don't think you've contributed positively to this discussion at all.

EDIT: You have, just not in any of my discussions.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Arcansi, this is why your idea is ********:

The rules you are trying to implement are WAY too subjective, which will lead to arguments. The rules you are trying to implement strip depth from match-ups and lower the overall skill ceiling and your philosophy for adding these rules is rife with hypocrisy.

 

[Ghostbone]

Respond to weird logic time!

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

We're playing as much of Brawl as possible, you're trying to play as little of Brawl as possible, go play a different game, or make your own mod of Brawl and get it popular.

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.

What? You're fine with people being forced into bad match-ups? But not when they have the choice to avoid the bad match-up?
/this part was confusing
A Lucas player has the choice to, not play Lucas.
And how are we not testing as much of the skills of competitively viable VS Mode of Brawl that it allows us to test?

Situational != Not Broken

Something being random != it being situational, that's just it being random.
If something is situational, that implies it's only useful in certain situations, which can be avoided, making it not broken.

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.

No I mean player X, if player X doesn't want to learn how to avoid the infinite, we don't ban his opponents from using it, that's just silly.
If I don't want to learn how to DI, should we ban people from killing me until I'm at the maximum percent my character can survive? No we don't, because we don't make rules to cover up weaknesses of players, that's scrubby and uncompetitive.

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.

Strawman, I'm referring to situations in the game we're playing.
Ignoring outside influence, and randomness from the game itself (tripping, spawn points) the player who wins played more skilfully, by definition.

Of course, If someone can't go more than 5 minutes without needing to go to toilet, that's a rather dubious player weakness, but it's still a player weakness.
Similarly if a player can't maintain their mental capacity to play over the day of the tournament, and ends up worn out by Grand Finals or whatever, and loses because of it, that means they're not as skilled at tournament Brawl (Brawl being played in a tournament setting, not necessarily referring to the rules at all) as the other player, and that's why they lost.

Blocks of the same quality*

Even with blocks of the same quality, some types of blocks will be better than others, and with you're logic we'll end up reshaping the blocks until they're all the same.

 

[popsofctown]

Thanks Mekos.

I wonder if Apex being run using this is enough testing for most people...



You? I don't think so, based on your posts. I could be wrong, but I don't think you've contributed positively to this discussion at all.

EDIT: You have, just not in any of my discussions.

I couldn't believe Apex is using this, but I checked and it's true.

Testing does not help, it's clear what the rule does some people just think the rule isn't right. I'm among them.

 

[Kewkky]

To be fair, Alex isn't banning combos and locks, just the infinites people ban at tourneys here and there. And he's doing it to accommodate people who are traveling from out of the country, at least that's what I remember him saying.

 

[popsofctown]

If that's why, it's understandable. The euro players ban infinites?

 

[Flayl]

It's a bit weird. In most cases every non-IC infinite is soft-banned: There is no rule saying you can't do it but players refuse to do it anyway. Of course there are tournaments where they are outright banned too.

akuma / xdd-master , lord chair, Mr-R, Laem namesearch this and clarify!

 

[MysteryRevengerson]

If this is really as bad as you think it is, Mekos wouldn't have stood a chance getting 2nd at a tourney.

I really hope someone else has already posted this...

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, this is why your idea is ********:

The rules you are trying to implement are WAY too subjective, which will lead to arguments. The rules you are trying to implement strip depth from match-ups and lower the overall skill ceiling and your philosophy for adding these rules is rife with hypocrisy.

1. How is only attempting to make bad matchups better based on a concrete formula subjective, again?

2. How do they strip depth or lower the overall skill ceiling, again?

3. Where's the hypcrisy. (Except maybe in a roundabout way on the IC thing, but idk)

Respond to weird logic time!

We're playing as much of Brawl as possible, you're trying to play as little of Brawl as possible, go play a different game, or make your own mod of Brawl and get it popular.

Not an argument really. Doesn't give me anything to respond to except that I acknowledge the way I think is weird.

What? You're fine with people being forced into bad match-ups? But not when they have the choice to avoid the bad match-up?
/this part was confusing
A Lucas player has the choice to, not play Lucas.
And how are we not testing as much of the skills of competitively viable VS Mode of Brawl that it allows us to test?

I'm fine with the matchup being bad. I'm not fine with a technique making one grab a death.

Something being random != it being situational, that's just it being random.
If something is situational, that implies it's only useful in certain situations, which can be avoided, making it not broken.

Planking is situational. It's broken.

No I mean player X, if player X doesn't want to learn how to avoid the infinite, we don't ban his opponents from using it, that's just silly.
If I don't want to learn how to DI, should we ban people from killing me until I'm at the maximum percent my character can survive? No we don't, because we don't make rules to cover up weaknesses of players, that's scrubby and uncompetitive.

Player X doesn't want to learn to avoid the infinite only because it doesn't exist in his world.

I'm not trying to make rules to cover up the weaknesses of players.

Strawman, I'm referring to situations in the game we're playing.

Ok then. If this is true why do I not hear mk's getting praised for being more skilled then other players, and only see their skill getting limited because they are too skilled?

I mean, this makes quite literally no sense at all! Are you guys trying to limit people from being too skilled?

Ignoring outside influence, and randomness from the game itself (tripping, spawn points) the player who wins played more skilfully, by definition.

Ok.

Of course, If someone can't go more than 5 minutes without needing to go to toilet, that's a rather dubious player weakness, but it's still a player weakness.
Similarly if a player can't maintain their mental capacity to play over the day of the tournament, and ends up worn out by Grand Finals or whatever, and loses because of it, that means they're not as skilled at tournament Brawl (Brawl being played in a tournament setting, not necessarily referring to the rules at all) as the other player, and that's why they lost.

Ok.

Even with blocks of the same quality, some types of blocks will be better than others, and with you're logic we'll end up reshaping the blocks until they're all the same.

Quality was literally the only factor in my analogy. Do you have a problem analyzing analogies without bringing in outside factors?

I couldn't believe Apex is using this, but I checked and it's true.

Testing does not help, it's clear what the rule does some people just think the rule isn't right. I'm among them.

Why so?

To be fair, Alex isn't banning combos and locks, just the infinites people ban at tourneys here and there. And he's doing it to accommodate people who are traveling from out of the country, at least that's what I remember him saying.

Ok. This seems to imply that on a global setting banning infinites is better then non.

It's a bit weird. In most cases every non-IC infinite is soft-banned: There is no rule saying you can't do it but players refuse to do it anyway. Of course there are tournaments where they are outright banned too.

akuma / xdd-master , lord chair, Mr-R, Laem namesearch this and clarify!

I almost have a vendetta against soft bans. The principle of it I hate.

If this is really as bad as you think it is, Mekos wouldn't have stood a chance getting 2nd at a tourney.

I really hope someone else has already posted this...

Nobody has, unfortunately. This is probably true, but I don't think is relevant at all.

 

[Zankoku]

Note that your method of "making bad match-ups better" is doing so in the only way you know how - removing parts of the game. While removing completely overcentralizing elements might improve the game, allowing players to explore a greater number of options, attempting to achieve complete balance through this method will only lead to every single option having zero notable distinction. And if there is a notable distinction, it will be imbalanced and you will have to remove even more to make sure everything stays balanced.

 

[Arcansi]

Note that your method of "making bad match-ups better" is doing so in the only way you know how - removing parts of the game. While removing completely overcentralizing elements might improve the game, allowing players to explore a greater number of options, attempting to achieve complete balance through this method will only lead to every single option having zero notable distinction. And if there is a notable distinction, it will be imbalanced and you will have to remove even more to make sure everything stays balanced.

This is assuming I was to wish to go this far.

I don't.

Note that I know how to add aspects to a game, but am unable to do so with Brawl, unless I was to make my own mod. Which I cannot.

 

[popsofctown]

It's wrong because it's a very surgical change. There's no party neutral and informed enough to make changes that benefit some groups of players and punish other groups. I've ignored DK matchups since the game came out and just occasionally practice the D3 infinite and the D3 DK matchup from time to time so I know I can CP him. I prepared that way because that's the way the game is. You're slicing my thumb if you change the game.

"infinite or not infinite" is not an intuitive, neutrally derived rule, it's an arbitrary line. Even if it is a hard and fast rule, I'd immediately demand ICs lose their chaingrab if I lose my pocket D3.
But back to it being arbitrary. Infinites are an aspect of the game that give some characters heavily advantageous matchups. But Falco's lasers against Ganondorf do the same thing. Kirby's duck against Ganon does this, probably wrecks Bowser too. You don't like moves that kill at 0%? Toon Link's downsmash can kill at zero, you'd need to ban that. Samus players spike me at 0 for a kill often, that down air is just too good. Such a spike is "infinite", it takes me straight to death.

Do I appreciate the benefit of trying to balance the game? Yes, the game is more diverse and varied without D3's infinite. But it's also more diverse and varied without Snake's grenades because they wreck me when I try to play fahncy toon link against snake. You don't have a neutral position to make changes you like without the ones I like. Changes like this require a committee that people agree should be able to make changes like this, advance warning of the changes, and probably a mod anyway because of enforcement issues. I'd love it if Brawl 4 had something like that early on, with a six month trial period followed by a committee developed liberal ruleset. It's fine to slice my thumb if I have warning and there's a decent attempt at neutrality. But rules from you, or the pretty undemocratically developed brawl back room (which, the lack of democracy isn't much of a problem as long as you keep to conservative policies), is not cool.

 

[Arcansi]

It's wrong because it's a very surgical change. There's no party neutral and informed enough to make changes that benefit some groups of players and punish other groups. I've ignored DK matchups since the game came out and just occasionally practice the D3 infinite and the D3 DK matchup from time to time so I know I can CP him. I prepared that way because that's the way the game is. You're slicing my thumb if you change the game.

"infinite or not infinite" is not an intuitive, neutrally derived rule, it's an arbitrary line. Even if it is a hard and fast rule, I'd immediately demand ICs lose their chaingrab if I lose my pocket D3.
But back to it being arbitrary. Infinites are an aspect of the game that give some characters heavily advantageous matchups. But Falco's lasers against Ganondorf do the same thing. Kirby's duck against Ganon does this, probably wrecks Bowser too. You don't like moves that kill at 0%? Toon Link's downsmash can kill at zero, you'd need to ban that. Samus players spike me at 0 for a kill often, that down air is just too good. Such a spike is "infinite", it takes me straight to death.

Do I appreciate the benefit of trying to balance the game? Yes, the game is more diverse and varied without D3's infinite. But it's also more diverse and varied without Snake's grenades because they wreck me when I try to play fahncy toon link against snake. You don't have a neutral position to make changes you like without the ones I like. Changes like this require a committee that people agree should be able to make changes like this, advance warning of the changes, and probably a mod anyway because of enforcement issues. I'd love it if Brawl 4 had something like that early on, with a six month trial period followed by a committee developed liberal ruleset. It's fine to slice my thumb if I have warning and there's a decent attempt at neutrality. But rules from you, or the pretty undemocratically developed brawl back room (which, the lack of democracy isn't much of a problem as long as you keep to conservative policies), is not cool.

What I'm getting here is that I shouldn't make changes like this without trying to balance the game completely and also that you would be upset if such things happened.

I'm sorry you would be upset, but this isn't anything like a casualty (and one casualty to save two lives is good anyway) and playing a more balanced game overall is a good thing.

I would love to have this game completely balanced, the community wouldn't.

I don't understand how only trying to make the game more balanced overall isn't a decent attempt at neutrality except some characters might get nerfed more overall then others. This is unfortunate, but something that must happen.

Also, you should probably back up why you would demand IC's get their grabs removed else it won't mean anything.

Basically, I'm sorry you wouldn't like it and that I cannot do more then this, but this doesn't really mean anything because the game is still getting balanced overall and some people being angry over it is inevitable.

Arcansi, balancing something =/= giving competitive depth or making it a more competitive game. We could make it so you can only play one character in the game and only use the A button. That would make it incredibly balanced, but would it be competitive? Brawl as it is is fairly competitive. Without MK, every character has their bad match-ups, and lots of high tier has a good chance at winning a tournament. Diversity is good, but forcing balance by removing depth to a game is a step in the wrong direction.

I have asked you once and I will ask you again. How does it remove competitive depth?

 

[popsofctown]

The ICs grabs are infinite. What was your criteria to begin with?

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi, balancing something =/= giving competitive depth or making it a more competitive game. We could make it so you can only play one character in the game and only use the A button. That would make it incredibly balanced, but would it be competitive? Brawl as it is is fairly competitive. Without MK, every character has their bad match-ups, and lots of high tier has a good chance at winning a tournament. Diversity is good, but forcing balance by removing depth to a game is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Arcansi]

To begin with? Much different then it is now.

Also, your CP wouldn't even be removed.

Unless you consider 50% a grab not good.

 

[popsofctown]

It would still be a CP, yes, but a less powerful CP.


The majority can't just oppress the minority. That minority won't show up to your tournaments because you're being a jerk to that minority.

 

[Arcansi]

It would still be a CP, yes, but a less powerful CP.


The majority can't just oppress the minority. That minority won't show up to your tournaments because you're being a jerk to that minority.

And so was the LGL.

The minority still show up. I also highly doubt people losing an instant kill and only getting 50% damage out of it will make them think f*** this.

I mean, really.

 

[Alphicans]

LOL!!!

Oh yes they will. I can't believe you said that.

 

[popsofctown]

And so was the LGL.

The minority still show up. I also highly doubt people losing an instant kill and only getting 50% damage out of it will make them think f*** this.

I mean, really.

I personally know someone who quit upon the LGL announcement.

People will act on principles, yes. The LGL was tolerated because people perceived it as being necessary, the same reason people support the MK ban.

When you ban D3's infinite to buff DK even though D3 is not overcentralizing, then your motives seem foul to me and yes I would ditch your tournament.

 

[Arcansi]

I personally know someone who quit upon the LGL announcement.

People will act on principles, yes. The LGL was tolerated because people perceived it as being necessary, the same reason people support the MK ban.

When you ban D3's infinite to buff DK even though D3 is not overcentralizing, then your motives seem foul to me and yes I would ditch your tournament.

Except im telling you my motives and your accepting them. I don't understand how they can seem foul, espicially after I told you I would have no problem with balancing this game to the fullest extent of possibility as long as depth gained >/= depth lost + balance is gained.

LOL!!!

Oh yes they will. I can't believe you said that.

Eh. It might be different in your community, (The one calling me a scrub...so idk.) but where I'm from, if it is proven that the change was for the better of the game, you learn to deal with it. Your character isn't suddenly unviable or anything, there's really nothing to complain about.

 

[DeLux]

Is rock paper scissors an imbalanced game?

 

[Alphicans]

You're not proving anything! What don't you get about that? Everything you're saying is entirely subjective.

 

[Arcansi]

Is rock paper scissors an imbalanced game?

Imbalanced as in should be fixed or imbalanced as in not perfectly balanced considering the human condition (as we are the only beings that play it as far as we know)?

 

[DeLux]

Imagine Smash is like RPS in terms of character selection:

I think a game where you'd have to pick more than one option (ie rock paper or scissors) in order to compete has more depth and requires more skill than a game where you would only need to pick only one option ( ie. scissors) and continually tie.


I think you would be better suited trying to make everyone have an equal number of adv / disadv ratio matchup than you would trying to make EVERY matchup neutral.