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

[WindMajor]

In other words, these characters already have a weakness (other matchups), it would be foolish and anti-competitive to force another weakness through a ruleset change because you don't want to abuse the original weakness.

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi, I feel you're kind of missing the point of what I am trying to say.

I want to ask you something. In what way does making every match-up even make the game more competitive? If you wanted to do what you're doing, you know what would be a way more "efficient" way of determining who was the best player? Ban every character except one! Look, by doing exactly the opposite of what you're doing, I am doing a better job than you (at least by your standards).

So I really want you to consider why making more even match-ups is beneficial. Why does a ruleset that allows for 30 even match-ups test who is the better player than a ruleset that allows for 10 even match-ups? People should pick the characters that have the even-matchups in either scenario shouldn't they? I guess I am really not getting your logic (if there is any...)

 

[Arcansi]

Have problem with matchup-specific ****?
Get a second. As in, learn to play another character besides your main.

There is no good reason to cater to people who don't want to learn another character and just want to limit their opponent so their character is viable.

Character selection is not a skill we wish to test in this game.

Refrence: MK being banned.

In other words, these characters already have a weakness (other matchups), it would be foolish and anti-competitive to force another weakness through a ruleset change because you don't want to abuse the original weakness.

See Above.

Arcansi, I feel you're kind of missing the point of what I am trying to say.

I want to ask you something. In what way does making every match-up even make the game more competitive? If you wanted to do what you're doing, you know what would be a way more "efficient" way of determining who was the best player? Ban every character except one! Look, by doing exactly the opposite of what you're doing, I am doing a better job than you (at least by your standards).

No, because your removing more diversity then your adding.

So I really want you to consider why making more even match-ups is beneficial. Why does a ruleset that allows for 30 even match-ups test who is the better player than a ruleset that allows for 10 even match-ups? People should pick the characters that have the even-matchups in either scenario shouldn't they? I guess I am really not getting your logic (if there is any...)

Character selection is not a skill we wish to test. See: Metaknight being banned.

This is why.

 

[Alphicans]

MK being banned isn't an argument in your favour... How are you seeing it as such? You should ignore it completely because it's not helping your case.

If MK was banned for good reasons, then my argument holds up... But wait! If he shouldn't be banned, my argument still holds up. It seems that the only thing you have to say in response to me is that since MK is banned I am not making a logical conclusion. Ok then I shall say MK should not be banned. Now my conclusion is logical right? What shall you say now?

Also why is diversity an issue at all? It seems you want to remove diversity by banning/limiting infinites right? By removing something you're getting rid of diversity.... Am I wrong?

 

[DeLux]

If we didn't want to test character selection, we wouldn't have a counter pick system...

 

[Alphicans]

Also Arcansi keep in mind that by character selection I am not strictly saying "picking your character to main," I am talking counter-pick selection. This is definitely a skill we wanted to test, and banning MK actually makes this more prominent. You using the MK ban against me doesn't really make sense at all.

 

[ElDominio]

Yeah, this thread doesn't really make sense in general :/

Who said we aren't testing character selection (whatever you mean by this)?
this thread really depresses me lol

 

[Arcansi]

Also Arcansi keep in mind that by character selection I am not strictly saying "picking your character to main," I am talking counter-pick selection. This is definitely a skill we wanted to test, and banning MK actually makes this more prominent. You using the MK ban against me doesn't really make sense at all.

This is true. But I would think we want to test counterpicking to a level that does not exceed 30%, maybe less, of our total game?

Being able to pick a character and say 'Ok I pretty much win this, g3?' does not follow such a thing.

If we didn't want to test character selection, we wouldn't have a counter pick system...

Ok. See Above.

NOTE: I deleted the first two paragraphs because they just merge into his actual post. (see: Above)

Also why is diversity an issue at all? It seems you want to remove diversity by banning/limiting infinites right? By removing something you're getting rid of diversity.... Am I wrong?

I meant depth, sorry. In the end, we get a net gain of depth from this.

Having more even matchups is beneficial because there is more depth and skill differentiation, espicially on a personal level.

Yeah, this thread doesn't really make sense in general :/

How So?

 

[Alphicans]

Even match-ups means loss of depth because there is no counter-pick dynamic. If every character went even with every character I feel a lot of depth gets lost, and it seems pretty much identical to banning every character except one and just playing dittos.

Also, don't use such arbitrary numbers when debating. 30%???? Says who? I believe the game should centralize around counter-picking, because imo, that shows who is the most skilled at the game.

 

[Arcansi]

Even match-ups means loss of depth because there is no counter-pick dynamic. If every character went even with every character I feel a lot of depth gets lost, and it seems pretty much identical to banning every character except one and just playing dittos.

1. (100%)Even matchup's don't mean a loss of depth relative to our current game.
They actually mean an AMAZING amount of depth gained.

Note that I'm not against certain characters countering each other, it's just that the counterpicking aspect of this game was extremely screwed over by metaknight and I have to get used to it existing.

So yeah, optimally there would be characters that counter another. But they wouldn't counter them so much as to practically auto-win.

Also, don't use such arbitrary numbers when debating. 30%???? Says who? I believe the game should centralize around counter-picking, because imo, that shows who is the most skilled at the game.

So you believe the first game shows nothing about who is the most skilled at the game?

You believe everything inside the game shows nothing about who is the most skilled at the game?

You need to redefine skill.

 

[Alphicans]

Don't state something without a reason. How does it add a lot more depth? I don't follow at all, and disagree heavily.

As to your second point. Skill is hard to define in the first place... But to clarify, I mean your ability to play enough characters adequately shows the most skill. Look at a lot of the top players atm. Tons of them use multiple characters, including (arguably) the best player in NA/Europe. Trying to even up match-ups does nothing. You say you don't want all even match-ups? Then why even bother trying to change them? Just leave them as is, because the rulset already tests who the best player is in a very efficient manner.

 

[Arcansi]

Don't state something without a reason. How does it add a lot more depth? I don't follow at all, and disagree heavily.

If only they taught balance theory where I live (or anywhere...) I would know how to explain to someone who does not understand what I do.

It adds more depth by making more character interactions.

If there is 1 character interaction (Shield < Grab) then there is X depth.

Infinites remove character interactions, thereby removing depth.

As to your second point. Skill is hard to define in the first place... But to clarify, I mean your ability to play enough characters adequately shows the most skill. Look at a lot of the top players atm. Tons of them use multiple characters, including (arguably) the best player in NA/Europe. Trying to even up match-ups does nothing. You say you don't want all even match-ups? Then why even bother trying to change them? Just leave them as is, because the rulset already tests who the best player is in a very efficient manner.

So someone who plays Ganon, Zelda, Link, Jiggly, Lucas should, in our game, have a fair shot at placing above people who play the IC's, Marth, & X, right?

I mean, they play 66% more characters!

I want to make them better then they currently are, because right now counterpicking is too much of the game in certain matchups.

I disagree, being that MK is not fully banned. With him fully banned, I disagree based on the above diagram of 5 vs 3 characters.

 

[Alphicans]

That was a huge strawman...

It is pretty obvious that quality of character choice is a factor aswell + lucas is a good option vs ICs (arguably), and zelda is good to have for your sheik in certain match-ups.

It's still very unclear how more character interactions = more depth. You're not explaining anything, you're just stating things.

EDIT: Let me just clarify completely so we don't have to prolong this.

By character selection I mean the skill in which the player decides which character is best to use in any given scenario. It may come down to match-ups, or it may come down to preference. I am not stating that we're testing who knows how to play the most characters, but that we're testing to see how well a player uses any amount of characters (be it one or multiple). It seems that most top players, and most large tournaments (without MK) are won by people who play multiple characters, meaning that it is a necessary skill to have.

To me, that shows a deep game. You want to increase character interactions, but you gotta answer the vital question: why do more character interactions = more depth than what I am presenting? Can you even compare the two? I'd venture to say that you cannot. From this I'd reason that both the current rulset and whatever your ruleset might be would offer an equally deep game, or at least offer varying levels of "deepness" that cannot be directly measured. However, since your proposition requires more complicated rules THAT COULD result in losses due to technicalites, I conclude that the current ruleset is better than your ruleset.

 

[Zankoku]

I'm pretty sure making match-ups more "even" by cutting out major options in their current gameplay is removing depth, not adding it. I mean, yes, there are a few really bad match-ups in Brawl that amount to a character that has Rock and Paper options against a character with only Rock, but while taking out Paper balances the chances out, you're still just left with a game of two people trying to Rock harder.

Essentially, while nerfing options will indeed move match-ups closer to balanced, it's doing so in a manner that reduces the entire cast to the lowest common denominator of option quality. I guess at that point it becomes a question of whether most of the community prefers to play a game consisting of 36 bottom tiers.

 

[Hive]

DDDs infinite- Its an easily producable tactic that involves a simple repeating combo, that significantly disables the other person's participation in the game/stock or at least dumbs down gameplay to a couple core tactics (planking, spamming trying to grab), makes all of the matchups it is in less balanced, and makes none of the mathups it is used in more balanced from a matchup standpoint. Maybe you are one of the people who thinks clicking on a character select screen outprioritzes dynamic gampelay inside of a match, I'll leave that up to you. I'll also leave it up to you to determine whether the magnitude of the tactic deserves a ban. However, I can't see how you can argue that it doesn't have any negative effect on gameplay complexity and depth.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Dedede's infinite undoubtedly removes depth in the long run, however, removing it would lead to an obligation to do EVERYTHING we can to balance the game lest we encounter double standards.

I shouldn't have to explain why that is a problem.

 

[Hive]

I'm only asking people to ban tactics when its benefits in relation to the costs of a decision gain value over the alternative of not banning it (and a lot of that has a subjective quality to it I know- and I realize differences of opinions can result along those lines). Saying we need to edit out everything that has any negative impact on skill depth is a slippery slope imo. We can recognize that there is middle ground, when we take measures for banning planking for example I don't think it necessarily lead to us having to take measures against all tactics that would produce unfair and tedious gameplay. We can't disregard costs of a decision regarding community feelings, its impact on gameplay comfort, ban implementation, and other various factors that do come into play when we choose to pursue one benefit (in this case skill depth). What I mean by that is there is definitely a line where balancing a tactic is no longer worth it.

Edit: in the case of DDDs infinite I bring it up because, in my opinion, it has qualities that make it more debatable than other depth reducing tactics (aside from the magnitude of the reduction): banning it has very little in terms of costs to matchup ratios, its relatively easy to implement a ban in regards to precedent (and without major issue), and its something that is really untedious to control not using (its not like we are stopping a player from using forward B, players are very aware of when they use the tactic).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This is not a slippery slope fallacy, this is very applicable to real situations, for example:

I played against a DK main with Jigglypuff in tournament yesterday.

He counter-picked me to Battlefield Game 3 (set was tied 1-1) and chose Snake. For anyone who is unaware, that is Jigglypuff's hardest match-up by far.

So I started the match, went to the ledge and got a few small strings by hitting the Snake with an invincible bair. Then I planked for the rest of the match.

I ended up ****ing up and suiciding with 1.30 left on the clock (my state uses a 9-min timer, so it is even harder to time out here) so he won the match and the set (I had 80 ledge-grabs), but he still left with the opinion that we should impose a ledge-grab limit and our TO is considering it.

If we back-track and assume there was a LGL, I wouldn't have been able to plank which would've let Snake keep pressuring me safely until he got the lead, and then counter all of my approaches (not an exaggeration) with Up Tilt. He would proceed to KO me at around 100% all 3 stocks with relative ease and win.

Who thinks the TO would've taken me seriously after that hypothetical match if I suggested a tilt limit for Snake?

****ing bias.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

All infinites with less than two characters should be banned

 

[Ghostbone]

Dedede's infinite undoubtedly removes depth in the long run, however, removing it would lead to an obligation to do EVERYTHING we can to balance the game lest we encounter double standards.

There really is no reason to ban his infinite...I'll compare it to MK for a sec.

With MK in the game, sure all the other match-up technically exist, but they're not played at all, so there's more overall depth without him.

There's only one match-up where D3 can both infinite the opponent, and that affects the opposing character's viability, and that's DK. (D3 doesn't hurt his own viability, Bowser is terrible anyway, and other characters can mash out, excluding the super hard one, and the slope specific one).
By banning his infinite, you're implying that DK mains shouldn't have to have a secondary for the D3 match-up.
Keeping it legal, you're requiring more skill from the DK player, who now needs to pick out of many secondaries who he can use to counter D3, this leads into the opponent also probably needing a secondary (D3 can be countered pretty hard) and overall, I'd say there's more overall depth from counter-picking.
/players should stop whining and realise that only a few characters are viable without a secondary, and nobody should get special treatment.

All infinites with less than two characters should be banned

So...everyone's on Wario (and ROB lol)?

Why the **** does he deserve a buff

Unless I'm reading it wrong, and you mean everyone except ICs (since there's technically two characters there I guess).
In which case.
Why the **** does Wario deserve a buff?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

He doesn't but if you guys are trying to find an easily enforceable rule that doesn't effect ICs' chain grab, that's it

 

[John12346]

I don't really care about what happens to infinites, although it'd probably be a better idea to just leave them in for the already stated reasons, but what Jebus said isn't a half bad suggestion. It even covers the situation with team battles lol.

Just looking at the way it'd be worded, the rule is kinda weird, but it'd defo. work.

 

[Arcansi]

That was a huge strawman...

It is pretty obvious that quality of character choice is a factor aswell.

So what you're saying is that people should be rewarded for picking DDD over Zelda? And our ruleset should reflect this because it is competitive?

It's still very unclear how more character interactions = more depth. You're not explaining anything, you're just stating things.

This is all stuff I learned YEARS ago. I'm sorry if I don't find it necessary to explain some things you don't get.

If the game was as it is now, but everyone died in one shot, the game wouldn't be balanced. It would also be very luck based in some matches.


If the game took one million successfull character interactions before conclusion, we can conclude that the game would be much more balanced due to it's ability to discern even 0.001% distinctions in skill significantly.

See?

EDIT: Let me just clarify completely so we don't have to prolong this.

By character selection I mean the skill in which the player decides which character is best to use in any given scenario. It may come down to match-ups, or it may come down to preference. I am not stating that we're testing who knows how to play the most characters, but that we're testing to see how well a player uses any amount of characters (be it one or multiple). It seems that most top players, and most large tournaments (without MK) are won by people who play multiple characters, meaning that it is a necessary skill to have.

To me, that shows a deep game. You want to increase character interactions, but you gotta answer the vital question: why do more character interactions = more depth than what I am presenting? Can you even compare the two? I'd venture to say that you cannot. From this I'd reason that both the current rulset and whatever your ruleset might be would offer an equally deep game, or at least offer varying levels of "deepness" that cannot be directly measured. However, since your proposition requires more complicated rules THAT COULD result in losses due to technicalites, I conclude that the current ruleset is better than your ruleset.

Finally you make some sense lol. Mine is better because it tests the things yours does to a VERY slight less extent while also testing mine much more.

I'm pretty sure making match-ups more "even" by cutting out major options in their current gameplay is removing depth, not adding it. I mean, yes, there are a few really bad match-ups in Brawl that amount to a character that has Rock and Paper options against a character with only Rock, but while taking out Paper balances the chances out, you're still just left with a game of two people trying to Rock harder.

You misunderstand. I want it limited to 3 regrabs. That does not remove an option except one that anyone can and will make, time and time again, and choose the same thing. (continue the free damage at no risk or not?)

Essentially, while nerfing options will indeed move match-ups closer to balanced, it's doing so in a manner that reduces the entire cast to the lowest common denominator of option quality. I guess at that point it becomes a question of whether most of the community prefers to play a game consisting of 36 bottom tiers.

It becomes a question of where we stop balancing. It's certainly not here that we do so.

Dedede's infinite undoubtedly removes depth in the long run, however, removing it would lead to an obligation to do EVERYTHING we can to balance the game lest we encounter double standards.

I shouldn't have to explain why that is a problem.

You do have to explain why your logically obligated to do something that is illogical after a certain point.

This is not a slippery slope fallacy, this is very applicable to real situations, for example:

1: See Above.

2: Can you put it in terms that are relevant? Should make it a lot better to respond to.

All infinites with less than two characters should be banned

I have the current change at limit to 3 regrabs, but I'm fine if people like banning better. (People seem to think banning removes a disporportionately large of character depth, like gabbing isn't even an option anymore.)

Spoiler

[COLLAPSE="responding later"]

There really is no reason to ban his infinite...I'll compare it to MK for a sec.

With MK in the game, sure all the other match-up technically exist, but they're not played at all, so there's more overall depth without him.

There's only one match-up where D3 can both infinite the opponent, and that affects the opposing character's viability, and that's DK. (D3 doesn't hurt his own viability, Bowser is terrible anyway, and other characters can mash out, excluding the super hard one, and the slope specific one).
By banning his infinite, you're implying that DK mains shouldn't have to have a secondary for the D3 match-up.
Keeping it legal, you're requiring more skill from the DK player, who now needs to pick out of many secondaries who he can use to counter D3, this leads into the opponent also probably needing a secondary (D3 can be countered pretty hard) and overall, I'd say there's more overall depth from counter-picking.

[/COLLAPSE]

/players should stop whining and realise that only a few characters are viable without a secondary, and nobody should get special treatment.

Except those people who have the mains that don't need secondaries, right?

So...everyone's on Wario (and ROB lol)?

Why the **** does he deserve a buff

Unless I'm reading it wrong, and you mean everyone except ICs (since there's technically two characters there I guess).
In which case.
Why the **** does Wario deserve a buff?

Because when you look at the whole picture, more overall balance is achieved, and that matters more then any one character in true competition.

@Ghostbone: I would respond to the rest of your post but class is over, so ill do it in 2 hours when I can get to a comp again.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm talking about stuff that has already happened.

We put a LGL on MK, then we put a LGL on the rest of the cast, and people like you want to limit EVERYTHING.

Meanwhile Jigglypuff is sitting in a corner wondering why you didn't give Snake a tilt limit, how is that balanced?

 

[Zankoku]

You misunderstand. I want it limited to 3 regrabs. That does not remove an option except one that anyone can and will make, time and time again, and choose the same thing. (continue the free damage at no risk or not?)

This is replacing one option (death combo) with a strictly worse one (three throws). Replacement involves the removal of one thing and addition of another, so yes, you are removing an option.

Anyway, if you do this only for specific match-ups, you're adding rules complexity to gameplay, which is rarely a good idea (do I have an infinite on Mario? What about Peach?). If you're doing this universally, then Ice Climbers are universally weakened - potentially to the point of being worse than several characters. If you want to balance things out, your solution to this would then be limiting even more things.

 

[Alphicans]

Arcansi, your responded to, I guess, my "master argument," with one VERY unsatisfying line. You completely negelected the issue of complexity, which is really my main problem with your ruleset. You cannot stop and limiting IC's cg. You'd have to have a tilt limit on snake vs jiggs, and a laser limit vs lots of characters vs falco and so on. If you do not, your ruleset has a massive double standard. The current ruleset doesn't really have a double standard because everything is consistent.

 

[Arcansi]

This is replacing one option (death combo) with a strictly worse one (three throws). Replacement involves the removal of one thing and addition of another, so yes, you are removing an option.

I am removing an option and replacing it with a better alternative. Ok.

Anyway, if you do this only for specific match-ups, you're adding rules complexity to gameplay, which is rarely a good idea (do I have an infinite on Mario? What about Peach?). If you're doing this universally, then Ice Climbers are universally weakened - potentially to the point of being worse than several characters. If you want to balance things out, your solution to this would then be limiting even more things.

People know who they have an infinite on. If they don't, there are MANY resources that they can use to find out.

There is not rules complexity in 'don't regrab over 3 times'.


I want to balance things out to a point. Not once have I said I am willing to balance Brawl out 100% at this point and time or any time in the future, and I would appreciate it if everyone would stop assuming this, thank you.

Arcansi, your responded to, I guess, my "master argument," with one VERY unsatisfying line. You completely negelected the issue of complexity, which is really my main problem with your ruleset. You cannot stop and limiting IC's cg. You'd have to have a tilt limit on snake vs jiggs, and a laser limit vs lots of characters vs falco and so on. If you do not, your ruleset has a massive double standard. The current ruleset doesn't really have a double standard because everything is consistent.

No it does not.

There is a LGL on Pit, G&W, etc.

There is a ban on MK.

There is a stage issue that favors some characters over others.

The same can be said about the stock and timer.

Complexity is not a problem because things like the LGL exist. Don't regrab him over 4 times in an unavoidable combo is about the same complexity as don't grab the ledge X amount of times if the game goes to time.

EDIT: As long as my line proves my point logically, I see no reason why it should be unsatisfying or relevant that it is one line or unsatisfying.

I'm talking about stuff that has already happened.

We put a LGL on MK, then we put a LGL on the rest of the cast, and people like you want to limit EVERYTHING.

Meanwhile Jigglypuff is sitting in a corner wondering why you didn't give Snake a tilt limit, how is that balanced?

You speak like I wouldn't support such a movement.

It is simply too far out of reach at this point for me to instigate with no outside help.

Heck, would you even support such a movement?

 

[Alphicans]

There is a global LGL, I don't see your point.

I don't see how MK being banned is inconsistent.

How are counter-pick stages an issue?

Stock and timer?

Wtf are you trying to say? Spell it out, don't make empty claims. Also please stop using the MK ban as an argument. It's a huge issue that should not be apart of this discussion. It goes outside of the scope of discussion tbh. Just assume he was banned with very good reason, or pretend he isn't banned, it makes no difference to me, but please stop using that as a point. It doesn't help you, I can assure you.

 

[Arcansi]

There is a global LGL, I don't see your point.

It limits some characters more then others just as a global regrab limit would do so.

I don't see how MK being banned is inconsistent.

I'll concede this point for ease of arguing.

How are counter-pick stages an issue?

They favour some characters over others. This is innate and part of the system. I don't see how you don't undertand this.

Stock and timer?

Lower stock makes Lucario worse. (there are other more in depth examples too) Higher makes him better.

Lower timer makes stalling characters better. Higher makes them worse

Wtf are you trying to say? Spell it out, don't make empty claims. Also please stop using the MK ban as an argument. It's a huge issue that should not be apart of this discussion. It goes outside of the scope of discussion tbh. Just assume he was banned with very good reason, or pretend he isn't banned, it makes no difference to me, but please stop using that as a point. It doesn't help you, I can assure you.

You missed the point, kinda, and I apologize because it was a bit vague. My first line was responding to your last sentence.

 

[Alphicans]

None of those points refute my point. Infact by answering how you are, you're assuming your ruleset is the better one, which is a big mistake when trying to argue something.

Global LGL is the only way to do it. Why? Because it eliminates the double standard. Counter-pick stages? Not a double standard, it's consistent for every set. If a character is bad on a stage, use a different character. You're testing a skill, which is a good thing. I don't see how it's an "innate" problem. How can you not understand this?

Stock and timer? Not a double standard, and is consistent for every set and match-up. And claiming what you did for lucario is a pretty bold statement, but w.e, it's not relevant to the argument.

So I guess this post sums up to... So what?

 

[Zankoku]

People know who they have an infinite on. If they don't, there are MANY resources that they can use to find out.

So now players need a paper reference just to make sure they aren't breaking any of a long list of match-up specific rules? If you plan to do more than just limit the Ice Climbers' chain grabs, I assure you that this is what your attempts at balance are starting to sound like.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You speak like I wouldn't support such a movement.

It is simply too far out of reach at this point for me to instigate with no outside help.

So you'd support a tilt limit for the Snake/Jigglypuff match-up? Cool, it still isn't perfectly even though. If you add a rule that if Snake gets hit by Rest he automatically loses a stock then you are getting closer to even, and you should probably ban him from having more than one grenade out at a time.

Then for the Falco vs. Jigglypuff match-up, its going to need a LGL so Puff can't plank him as well as a jab limit for Falco as that is one of his strongest tools in the match-up.

Diddy shouldn't be allowed to use peanuts against Puff... That should make it pretty close to even.

I can keep going if you'd like, and disagreeing with any one of these suggestions would be a massive double standard on your part.

Heck, would you even support such a movement?

**** no.

 

[Arcansi]

None of those points refute my point. Infact by answering how you are, you're assuming your ruleset is the better one, which is a big mistake when trying to argue something.

Global LGL is the only way to do it. Why? Because it eliminates the double standard. Counter-pick stages? Not a double standard, it's consistent for every set. If a character is bad on a stage, use a different character. You're testing a skill, which is a good thing. I don't see how it's an "innate" problem. How can you not understand this?

Stock and timer? Not a double standard, and is consistent for every set and match-up. And claiming what you did for lucario is a pretty bold statement, but w.e, it's not relevant to the argument.

So I guess this post sums up to... So what?

The rule has been amended to 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'

Credit to Jebus.

 

[C.J.]

Why 3? Why not 4? Does 3 regrabs magically balance out MUs better than 2 or 4 or 5?

 

[Alphicans]

The rule has been amended to 'Any one single character may not regrab anyone more then three times unavoidably.'

Credit to Jebus.

K so I guess the falco vs snake m/u was just put into snake's favour. Same for vs diddy.

DDD just got ****ed over really hard, and is likely mid tier now. Do you really think this rule does more good than harm?

EDIT: C.J, that's a point I guess, but doesn't seem too important. No matter what the grab limit it's a bad rule. If it's too low, then characters get ****ed over hard, and if it's made to compensate for DDD, pika and falco, then it doesn't effectively do it's job (ICs don't need that many grabs on average to get the kill).

 

[Arcansi]

K so I guess the falco vs snake m/u was just put into snake's favour. Same for vs diddy.

DDD just got ****ed over really hard, and is likely mid tier now. Do you really think this rule does more good than harm?

EDIT: C.J, that's a point I guess, but doesn't seem too important. No matter what the grab limit it's a bad rule. If it's too low, then characters get ****ed over hard, and if it's made to compensate for DDD, pika and falco, then it doesn't effectively do it's job (ICs don't need that many grabs on average to get the kill).

OH NO, A RULE IS BALANCING CHARACTERS!?!?!?!?!?!

See that whole post you called irrelevant.

 

[Zankoku]

Wasn't Falco vs Snake even? That sure is some great "balance" you're implementing there.

 

[Alphicans]

How are you balancing them? Without those tools, they lose match-ups. That means there is an imbalance. Besides I don't see how your post just now makes sense. You already know I am against "balancing characters" via complex rules.

 

[ElDominio]

EDIT: C.J, that's a point I guess, but doesn't seem too important. No matter what the grab limit it's a bad rule. If it's too low, then characters get ****ed over hard, and if it's made to compensate for DDD, pika and falco, then it doesn't effectively do it's job (ICs don't need that many grabs on average to get the kill).

He's highlighting exactly why it's a bad rule.

Why can't this thread PLEASE BE CLOSED ALREADY????

Can't we have a poll on like, the public opinion on this thread?

Since anti-ban's new blame on MK ban is "overcentralization", then I say this thread is so, and so are Arcansi and SMJ. They have too many posts which are too derp to read, bringing the community to a halt with their apparent incompetence.

I hereby request that polls be made for these sort of things, where the majority can decide what happens.
Give us, the people, the ability to vote a thread closed.

 

[Arcansi]

Wasn't Falco vs Snake even? That sure is some great "balance" you're implementing there.

Overall? Yeah it is. Why should we be biased based on character tiers, exactly? Becuase I mean the balance gained in matchups like DDD vs DK is VERY worth it. Also, the Snake vs Falco matchup is even RIGHT NOW, and IN YOUR OPINION.

Makes for a bad argument. (although the latter can be debated.)

How are you balancing them? Without those tools, they lose match-ups. That means there is an imbalance. Besides I don't see how your post just now makes sense. You already know I am against "balancing characters" via complex rules.

You lose some balance and gain more. This is a net gain of balance.

That is not a complex rule. Don't do an unavoidable regrab more then 3 times on someone with a single character.

He's highlighting exactly why it's a bad rule.

Then I guess timer, and stock are bad rules too right?

Why can't this thread PLEASE BE CLOSED ALREADY????

Can't we have a poll on like, the public opinion on this thread?

Argumentum ad populum. Please don't commit it.

Since anti-ban's new blame on MK ban is "overcentralization", then I say this thread is so, and so are Arcansi and SMJ. They have too many posts which are too derp to read, bringing the community to a halt with their apparent incompetence.

I hereby request that polls be made for these sort of things, where the majority can decide what happens.
Give us, the people, the ability to vote a thread closed.

I laughed out loud, and thank you for that.

On a more serous note, the majority is not garunteed to be logical or correct. see:argumentum ad populum.