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

[Ghostbone]

I've seen tournaments with grab limits (usually 5) or a rule that states that ddd needs to dash between grabs (or even just no DDD infinites- really everyone knows what that means if they aren't trying to twist it). They do just fine on attendance. I believe Hobo usto do something along these lines actually before it was unity. Genesis 1 was going to ban DDDs infinites until the very morning of the tourney too- clearly did not stop ppl from attending.
Grab limits are nothing new, if the argument is implementation or attendence I would say historically they have shown to have no significant negative effects. DDDs aren't going to stop going, skilled DDDs will still be winning against almost all the infinite (or near infinite) prone characters anyways. An argument against a ban needs to be more about gameplay mechanics, etc... the implementation argument just can't really stand anymore given historical evidence showing time and again it turns out fine.

Again with D3's "infinites"
On flat ground (so no slopes), he can only infinite DK, Bowser, and another D3.
It's not worth implementing a rule that won't have much of an effect overall, a DK main should have a secondary for match-ups like Falco and Wario if he wants to do well anyway...no reason not to expect them to play a different character against D3 also.
Bowser's not important (sorry Bowser mains ) and D3 doesn't hurt his own viability.

 

[Zankoku]

Status quo isn't always accepted. When I argue, it usually is on something that's accepted.

Status quo is quite often accepted.

Then explain why what is currently accepted is currently accepted, and why what you're proposing is beneficial enough to warrant additional rules.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Because I think differently then you?

No, because that is the standard ad absurdum; i.e. that's the point where you're done. Where you say, "all right, my logic has failed". When you would insert a tilt limit for snake in the Jiggs MU, you are done. That's like when your logic leads you around to "yeah, the holocaust was justified" or "Yeah, creationism is a sensible way of looking at the world"–you've officially crossed the border where it makes no ****ing sense any more. I mean, for ****'s sake, does "Argumentum Ad Absurdum" even say anything to you?

I mean, seriously, even drunk, I can out-debate the **** out of you.

 

[Yummy!]

arcansi, has ANYONE agreed with you so far? if not, that MUST say something to you.....but knowing you your gonna twist it into how its the communities fault for not understanding you

 

[Hive]

Again with D3's "infinites"
On flat ground (so no slopes), he can only infinite DK, Bowser, and another D3.
It's not worth implementing a rule that won't have much of an effect overall, a DK main should have a secondary for match-ups like Falco and Wario if he wants to do well anyway...no reason not to expect them to play a different character against D3 also.
Bowser's not important (sorry Bowser mains ) and D3 doesn't hurt his own viability.

no, the infinite extends far beyond just those three characters. Even if there is some technical breakout at some high buttom mashing capacity in a small wndow, in practice I just don't see this play out in a way that actually negates its impact on the matchup reliably, the infinite still ends up having a huge destructive on a ton of matchups. It helps if you've played characters effected by it in tourney....

 

[Zankoku]

Really? From what I've seen, in practice it's just the opposite.

 

[Flayl]

I don't get the idea how a tactic is "less broken" if it works only on bad characters. if it works on good characters but doesn't overcentralize it's just as valid.

Why did this reach 27 pages. Years ago this would've been locked.

 

[Arcansi]

Again with D3's "infinites"
On flat ground (so no slopes), he can only infinite DK, Bowser, and another D3.
It's not worth implementing a rule that won't have much of an effect overall, a DK main should have a secondary for match-ups like Falco and Wario if he wants to do well anyway...no reason not to expect them to play a different character against D3 also.
Bowser's not important (sorry Bowser mains ) and D3 doesn't hurt his own viability.

Except the rule affects other people then just D3, Bowser is an important character, and D3 can hurt his own viability if he sucked.

But he doesn't.

Then explain why what is currently accepted is currently accepted, and why what you're proposing is beneficial enough to warrant additional rules.

It's currently accepted because the community has acquired a taste for it somehow even through tournaments banning it some time ago. They never saw a large reason to discuss it or were likely shot down (see: the first page of this thread) or in some other way did not get through.

Because it's implementable, warranted, and not overcomplicated.

The main thing I should need to explain here is warranted. It's warranted becuase it balances our game without going into extremely small changes, without making everything 50/50, and without unknowingly f'ing over any characters. (see: Falco can still get GREAT damage on snake with only 3 regrabs.)

No, because that is the standard ad absurdum; i.e. that's the point where you're done. Where you say, "all right, my logic has failed". When you would insert a tilt limit for snake in the Jiggs MU, you are done. That's like when your logic leads you around to "yeah, the holocaust was justified" or "Yeah, creationism is a sensible way of looking at the world"–you've officially crossed the border where it makes no ****ing sense any more. I mean, for ****'s sake, does "Argumentum Ad Absurdum" even say anything to you?

1. Your drunk.

2. it's not argumentum ad absurdum because I awknowledge that in real life it would never happen and that it applies only to a specific situation I don't expect our community to move towards, ever.

arcansi, has ANYONE agreed with you so far? if not, that MUST say something to you.....but knowing you your gonna twist it into how its the communities fault for not understanding you

See: Hive.

Really? From what I've seen, in practice it's just the opposite.

Did/do you play characters affected by it in tourney? Hive mentioned that that helps.

I don't get the idea how a tactic is "less broken" if it works only on bad characters. if it works on good characters but doesn't overcentralize it's just as valid.

Why did this reach 27 pages. Years ago this would've been locked.

Are you saying something for or against this, I can't tell.

 

[Zankoku]

I play regularly against FOW, who mains Ness. Ness gets grab release regrabbed by Marth, a character I play quite a bit. He tends to mash out if I pummel once with Marth under 90%.
By comparison, Dedede's infinite on Mario, Luigi, and Samus requires that he pummel twice between each throw. In addition, he has a slower pummel.

 

[Arcansi]

Okay, understood.

 

[Siyh]

Although low risk high reward combos do put the receiving player at a great disadvantage early on, it does not mean the match is unwinnable because of it. I hate playing the fox vs. pikachu match-up because it's almost an auto 90+ damage start off for fox, but I still believe it's winnable with an immense amount of effort. It may not be fair, but no match-up (excluding duo's) is. Thats just life.

 

[Hive]

I play regularly against FOW, who mains Ness. Ness gets grab release regrabbed by Marth, a character I play quite a bit. He tends to mash out if I pummel once with Marth under 90%.
By comparison, Dedede's infinite on Mario, Luigi, and Samus requires that he pummel twice between each throw. In addition, he has a slower pummel.

DDD should only need 1 pummel to keep it going I believe.

 

[Zankoku]

Oh yeah, it's one, my mistake.

 

[Hive]

no problem I get what you are saying though, and I think its a valid interpretation.

edit: Just in my exp I've tended to see the breakout still create a really hard environment for skill to be compared between players. Breakouts against buffered throws seem (and I could be wrong) to be unreliable and difficult and the breakout itself can put you back into a vulnerable position at times. I'd be interested to hear from FOW and others their takes on breakout viability in matchups though (esp with DDD prone characters), and not just matchup ratios but stuff like how exciting gameplay is with them in.

 

[tekkie]

I'd be interested to hear from FOW and others their takes on breakout viability in matchups though (esp with DDD prone characters), and not just matchup ratios but stuff like how exciting gameplay is with them in.

i'd love to hear this as well. i've seen threads dedicated to mashing out more quickly but i'm surprised there isn't some kind of central dedication around the concept, like the benefits of different control schemes and stuff like that

 

[C.J.]

There was; K prime posted a way to get insanely quick mashing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4pHZUJGG0k&feature=channel_video_title

 

[Arcansi]

Until it is shown to be done in high level play, I think this falls under the thing of Diddy's solo nanner lock and such.

A cool technique, but not being used = not being considered for the ruleset. (or tier list or anything, really.)

Trying not to be a downer...but...

 

[Alphicans]

So instead of allowing people the time to realize it is possible, you're just going to eliminate the need altogether?

Why?

 

[Arcansi]

So instead of allowing people the time to realize it is possible, you're just going to eliminate the need altogether?

Why?

Because people already know it is possible and it has been abused at least once and will be abused in the future.

People know. People just aren't being listened to because there aren't a lot of them, which is not a fault of them in any way.

ALSO: Why should people need to know it is possible? I would rather have it happen 0 times then 1 time.

 

[Alphicans]

They should need to know because it's something that really helps them. It's the player's fault for not looking into these types of things.

 

[Yink]

i'd love to hear this as well. i've seen threads dedicated to mashing out more quickly but i'm surprised there isn't some kind of central dedication around the concept, like the benefits of different control schemes and stuff like that

I can try to speak for him if you'd like? I helped with Shaky's mashing, and I believe they both mash with the dpad (if not, then Shaky and I do) and it's very helpful.

There's also a little way to slide (I refuse to call it EIDI because it was "disproven") but it stops an immediate regrab.

 

[Arcansi]

They should need to know because it's something that really helps them. It's the player's fault for not looking into these types of things.

It really helps them be really overpowered in the matchup.

Not something we should want if we want to be competitive.

Also note that limiting it allows them to still do it somewhat.

ALSO: Where did all these new people come from!? It's kinda sick.

 

[Alphicans]

I don't see how the second line logically follows the first.

I read into it as:

If it really helps them AVOID being overpowered in a match-up, it IS something we want if we want it to be competitive. I am trying my best to be consistent with your previous statements of competitive btw.

 

[Zankoku]

I spoke with FOW on his opinion about stuff like grab releases and such. For some reason he doesn't really post much on SWF, but his opinion was basically:

I'm okay with all of it. I mean, sure, it's dumb, but it's all in the game so you can't do anything about it.

 

[Yink]

I spoke with FOW on his opinion about stuff like grab releases and such. For some reason he doesn't really post much on SWF, but his opinion was basically:

I'm okay with all of it. I mean, sure, it's dumb, but it's all in the game so you can't do anything about it.

I agree with this, and I'd like to hope that other Ness (and Lucas) mains would too. While yes it is obnoxious, it's just something you have to live with for your character. I'd like to think Ness proved being grab released isn't the end-all to his character as well.

 

[Ghostbone]

Until it is shown to be done in high level play, I think this falls under the thing of Diddy's solo nanner lock and such.

A cool technique, but not being used = not being considered for the ruleset. (or tier list or anything, really.)

Trying not to be a downer...but...

Dude, if you're really trying to say that we should limit something because people aren't bothering to learn the tech skill to deal with it, you're ********.

Secondly, I do that mashing all the time lol, <3 breaking out of IC's chain-grabs if they try to charge a u-smash on me.

The only reason you don't see it used often, is because it requires you to change your hand position which takes time.
If you're being grab-released (or you predict a grab from Olimar or something) you have plenty of time to mash, which makes it extremely effective for escaping from chain-grabs and stuff that require pummels.

 

[tekkie]

I can try to speak for him if you'd like? I helped with Shaky's mashing, and I believe they both mash with the dpad (if not, then Shaky and I do) and it's very helpful.

There's also a little way to slide (I refuse to call it EIDI because it was "disproven") but it stops an immediate regrab.

do you set d-pad to other controls?

 

[Arcansi]

I spoke with FOW on his opinion about stuff like grab releases and such. For some reason he doesn't really post much on SWF, but his opinion was basically:

I'm okay with all of it. I mean, sure, it's dumb, but it's all in the game so you can't do anything about it.

WAIT. Are you telling me that the current competitive standard and it's creators are okay with certain things being in the game because of an illogical reason? (Read: can't do anything about it? Tell that to planking, Sudden Death, Suicides, Infi-cape, and Metaknight.)

Dude, if you're really trying to say that we should limit something because people aren't bothering to learn the tech skill to deal with it, you're ********.

So what your saying is metaknights 0-death should be banned, as should nana & tire locks.

Correct? This would seem to follow your line of logic.

Because the current ruleset supports what I'm saying.

The only reason you don't see it used often, is because it requires you to change your hand position which takes time.

I'm reading this as not very likely to be doable in most situations.

If you're being grab-released (or you predict a grab from Olimar or something) you have plenty of time to mash, which makes it extremely effective for escaping from chain-grabs and stuff that require pummels.

I would try and find a good match to prove/disprove this, but I can't as there really aren't any like marth vs lucas matches that I know of recently. (or really ever, save a few).

Again, my first point.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As someone who plays against Ghost on a regular basis and uses Ice Climbers, I can attest to him using the K-prime method.

 

[Asa]

i use kprime's method as well, as does brick

 

[Alphicans]

TBH, if you don't use that method you're unnecessarily putting yourself at a disadvantage. I have yet to practice it cause I am lazy, but I'll likely get to it.

 

[Arcansi]

Note that this still doesn't do anything to stuff like falco's or DDD's cgs.

Also, yoshi's on wario.

 

[Alphicans]

Right, but without those cg's, falco and DDD lose a ton of match-ups. I know you addressed this point earlier, which went something like,

"we're not changing the amount of bad match-ups, because if we change one match-up, the other one changes, resulting in a net change of 0." I mean yeah that's true, but you're getting rid of a technique and implementing an unnecessary rule because the rule set already tests who the better player is. Unnecessary rules are illogical to use because all they do is create potential disputes in the tournament setting.

Also as an aside. Assume lgl's, MK being banned, sudden death rule etc are all necessary, because they kind of have been proven to be necessary (At least to some degree).

 

[Arcansi]

Right, but without those cg's, falco and DDD lose a ton of match-ups. I know you addressed this point earlier, which went something like,

"we're not changing the amount of bad match-ups, because if we change one match-up, the other one changes, resulting in a net change of 0." I mean yeah that's true, but you're getting rid of a technique and implementing an unnecessary rule because the rule set already tests who the better player is. Unnecessary rules are illogical to use because all they do is create potential disputes in the tournament setting.

1: Are you telling me the ruleset tests who the better player is because the ruleset defines who the better player is under itself?

Following this line of logic, there is no reason to change anything ever.

2: I don't see how it causes any disputes, being a straightforward rule with no arbitrary concepts.

Also as an aside. Assume lgl's, MK being banned, sudden death rule etc are all necessary, because they kind of have been proven to be necessary (At least to some degree).

Why should I, again? I mean, in no way has LGL been proven to be necessary to any degree.

 

[Yink]

do you set d-pad to other controls?

That's right. Shaky's pretty fast too, I'm not so bad either.

@Arcansi: Dude, Ness and Lucas still get messed up without infinites...it's not like if the infinite was illegal the Marth match up would be any better in the long run. That's just one example for you, I suppose.

 

[Alphicans]

I am not sure if I understand "1." but I'll attempt to answer based on what I think you mean.

We change things that are absolutely necessary. What we have deemed absolutely necessary are things that cause the game to degenerate into one single tactic. Things like MK, LGLs etc. have been deemed to do just that. It does not matter if I or you agree with that, because that is what we're working with. If you feel MK does not lead to degenerative gameplay, then you can make a separate thread for that, and the same goes for lgl. This thread deals with adding an additional rule, and does not fit the same criteria as past surgical rules.

It will cause disputes. Someone regrabs 4 times, the person is gonna wanna abuse the rule to the greatest length possible. Also the concept is arbitrary btw, although that's not very important.

 

[Zankoku]

WAIT. Are you telling me that the current competitive standard and it's creators are okay with certain things being in the game because of an illogical reason? (Read: can't do anything about it? Tell that to planking, Sudden Death, Suicides, Infi-cape, and Metaknight.)

FOW doesn't really give a **** about any of that and is against the Meta Knight ban. So, yes, he's okay with it.

 

[Ghostbone]

So what your saying is metaknights 0-death should be banned, as should nana & tire locks.

Correct? This would seem to follow your line of logic.

Because the current ruleset supports what I'm saying.

That's not what I'm saying, you're incorrect, and the current ruleset doesn't support it.

I'm reading this as not very likely to be doable in most situations.

We don't need to ban most situations either, or do we according to you? lol.

I would try and find a good match to prove/disprove this, but I can't as there really aren't any like marth vs lucas matches that I know of recently. (or really ever, save a few).

Again, my first point.

Just....think.
Marth grabs you and you're Lucas, you know you're going to keep getting grabbed...unless you have a reaction time of like, 10+ seconds, you're going to be mashing out as fast as possible for every grab after that, taking the least amount of damage possible (like 1% per grab kinda thing, as the pummel stales).
If you're Samus against D3, you have plenty of time to start mashing, and get out of the "infinite", again unless your reaction time is terrible (how are you even playing the game at that point?)

 

[Hive]

We change things that are absolutely necessary. What we have deemed absolutely necessary are things that cause the game to degenerate into one single tactic.

No ruleset change ever made has ever been or will ever be "necessary" it is always a subjective determination of how we want the game to be, balancing the benefits versus the costs of that decision in relation to the alternatives. It is fully possible to play with items, idc, and all those things previously removed,
but we don't....
not because such an objective law exists that governs how we play, but as always, irrevocably, at heart it is about what is "more fun" in a game for us, the community, to have. This may seem too simplistic, but all games at heart are about enjoyment in one form or another- maybe from the story, or the gameplay, or fun from accomplishing something... etc.. I do however believe that in a competitive scene we can assume that meaningful comparisons of skill between players are a beneficial thing to uphold. What I'm saying though is we shouldn't allow things that make our gameplay experience worse than an alternative of not banning them because they do not meet some arbitrary threshold, this goes against the very essence of decision theory, we should try to make the game the best it can be. Degeneration into 1 tactic can mean too many different things: even the B button overcentralizes gameplay around itself, so where are we drawing the line? I think its important to realize that its not really about what is necessary, but about what is better.

 

[Ghostbone]

Define better.
Just public opinion? So if >50% people vote for something then it should become a rule?

Just wondering what your criteria is.