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

[Zankoku]

I was hoping to steer the discussion more toward Arcansi's predictions and his rules, but since he keeps redirecting towards elements of a ruleset that my part of the country doesn't even use, I'm going to assume he's not trying to defend his rules as good so much as he's trying to claim someone else's rules are bad and end my involvement in this since that topic really doesn't matter to me.

 

[Pikaville]

Whoever started this thread is literally trying make Brawl a game of standing still taunting and whoever does the most taunts wins.

Taking the very limited combos this game has out of competitive play is literally the silliest thing I have ever heard.

 

[Arcansi]

I was hoping to steer the discussion more toward Arcansi's predictions and his rules, but since he keeps redirecting towards elements of a ruleset that my part of the country doesn't even use, I'm going to assume he's not trying to defend his rules as good so much as he's trying to claim someone else's rules are bad and end my involvement in this since that topic really doesn't matter to me.

No offence, but it is incredibly stupid of you to post this in the way you did, and imply that you were leaving the thread because of such.

Do you not understand that if I am going to argue, I am going to argue based on the current situation, and not one I am not even aware of exists?

Had you ever let me know(which you did not) that your region doesn't use these rules, I would've asked this.

What rules does your region use, so that I can argue efficiently with you and your regions philosophies?

Arcansi can you please say why an advantage gained via a chaingrab or some other simple to perform high damage tactic is unacceptable to competitive play?

There's a scale of risk-reward. The high risk high reward end is Ganon's Warlock Punch. The low risk low reward end is ZSS' jab.

The low risk high reward end shouldn't exist. And currently it does.

Clearly it is not saturating the game as there only a hand full match-ups which are actually affected by note worthy chain grabs and even less that removing the chain-grab causes a major difference in.

But it matters to those matchups, and if those are the main ones the rule effects then it is doing its job.

Can you also say why we need to change the game's natural balance (or imbalance depending on your outlook) when there are many games which have survived the test of time with less characters and even more simple to perform high damage combos?

This game is not like those games. This change brings us closer to true balance, and this is a positive change on the game.

Thank you for that post.

???

What does planking and the LGL have to do with anything involving the limitation of guaranteed vs. nonguaranateed combos?

the LGL is a nonguaranteed tactic(which is what bad chaingrabs are) that is designed to win the game in a way all of us are aware exists, as we are the ones who put the rule in that make it exist. What you have done is punished this not guaranteed tactic because it stalls out too hard in certain matchups. This is pretty much exactly what I'm doing, except instead of stalling to win it just wins some other way.

It still wins extremely easily and is low-risk high-reward, which is what you are in essence punishing here.

The LGL applies only to time outs as it's designed to prevent stalling. Just as the Over 300% rule is designed to prevent stalling.

This is definitely in some way fundamentally incorrect. Either your lying to me (why would these rules exist to prevent stalling when we already have a rule that bans it?) Or these rules shouldn't exist in any way shape or form (Because we already have a rule banning stalling.)

Or your using stalling to mean two different things, which is horrible.

The limiting of guaranteed combos and not guaranteed tactics is designed to limit what? Advantage within Matchups?

This along with what I said above. Which is the exact same thing the LGL is designed to prevent, and the 300% rule. (or atleast the things they do prevent.)

The analogy doesn't fit

Until you apply logic to it.

In the case of falco, reducing the amount of regrabs does not help the low tiers AT ALL, and only hurts falco. I don't take your analysis of the match-ups to be correct. I main falco, and am likely 1st or 2nd best falco in Canada, I am not pulling this **** out of my ***, I know what I am talking about.

Are you aware of what you are saying? It helps them because it allows them to get out of the chain grab instead of having a guaranteed spike thrown on them every day.

There is no possible way that limiting the chaingrab could not help them, as all it does is cause them to take less damage in certain situations, as a rule.

Are you aware of the meaning of the words you are typing?

Also, please don't appeal to the character boards. Lots of people post on them, and not many of them are high or even mid level players. Don't take them too seriously, and if you wanna take them seriously you gotta know what you're looking for.

I would make sure I did before I asked, thanks.

The pikachu example. I am not saying they equal each other, I am saying the match-ups don't change vs the characters he can CG, or at least change very minimally. In this example pika isn't nerfed and the low tiers aren't buffed, there is just a rule that adds unneeded complexity to the ruleset.

It DEFINITELY helps him on the characters he can 0-death, as he often needs around 9+ throws to do that.

It also helps him on the rest of those because he gets like 8+ grabs on 90-100% of the characters listed, meaning the chaingrab is cut in half!

I'll continue and go to DDD. Here is where the rule has some balance merit to it. DK vs DDD becomes doable for DK. I think that's the only change though tbh. I still don't see any other character gaining much from this. So I guess your rule helps DK.

See: Marth on Lucas, Yoshi on Wario...

Also see, the other characters he has infinites on, etc.

On to ICs. Similar to falco. The majority of the characters ICs completely dominates is not due to the cg at all. Ganon vs ICs? Even with the cg banned, ICs would body ganon so hard. This applies to pretty much all of low tier, and a ton of mid tier. Characters they absolutely need the cg like vs snake, marth, olimar, pikachu etc. they now lose at least -1, and in some cases -2 (imo of course).

This paragraph would be cool if the rule affected them in any way.

So just to be clear, I am not gonna bother arguing with your philosophy because you seem to have convinced yourself the BoP is not on you, so you're assuming your position is correct with minimal evidence (this, by the way, is the definition of begging the question just so you know). Instead, I am analyzing what your rule accomplishes, and it does not appear to accomplish much at all.

Assume this. It does not seem to accomplish much, but it does not seem to harm anything except in what you guys call 'rules complexity'. And even in that it does not actually change much, as it adds very little rules complexity and that is outweighed by the amount of help it gives in some matchups.

It may not achieve much in your opinion. But as long as it achieves something, and that something is positive, why not implement it?

 

[Alphicans]

K, you're dancing around issues and prolonging this. Removing the cg helps characters that falco +3's such a minimal amount, it's virtually nothing. That is my point, and it's a valid point.

Consider pika vs fox. You can cg 3 times, then foot stool him and then put him in a position where he has exactly 4 options to avoid the grab again, 2 of which are essentially the same option. This rule helps fox, sheik, falcon and wolf a pretty minimal amount. It helps falco I guess.

How doesn't this rule affect ICs? Am I missing something?

I think it does add complexity, and I also think it gets rid of a counter-pick aspect to the game which is a negative thing.

 

[DeLux]

the LGL is a nonguaranteed tactic(which is what bad chaingrabs are) that is designed to win the game in a way all of us are aware exists, as we are the ones who put the rule in that make it exist. What you have done is punished this not guaranteed tactic because it stalls out too hard in certain matchups. This is pretty much exactly what I'm doing, except instead of stalling to win it just wins some other way.

It still wins extremely easily and is low-risk high-reward, which is what you are in essence punishing here.

This is definitely in some way fundamentally incorrect. Either your lying to me (why would these rules exist to prevent stalling when we already have a rule that bans it?) Or these rules shouldn't exist in any way shape or form (Because we already have a rule banning stalling.)

Or your using stalling to mean two different things, which is horrible.

Or you know, you could look at it the other way where the rule stating "stalling is banned" is redundant and the stalling tactics are what should be banned (which I've advocated removing said redundancy)

The difference between stalling and combos lie in how they affect the matchup flow in terms of score. A combo undoubtedly changes the scoreboard in game while a stall tactics prevents a score change.

The timer is a second tier win/loss function that is entirely dependent on the first tier win/loss function of percent. Preventing a method to stalemate the primary win/loss function by means of limiting the secondary win/loss criteria is not comparable to limiting the primary win/loss criteria for the sake of limiting the primary win/loss criteria by your arbitrary whim.

 

[sunshade]

There's a scale of risk-reward. The high risk high reward end is Ganon's Warlock Punch. The low risk low reward end is ZSS' jab.

The low risk high reward end shouldn't exist. And currently it does.

If I were to say that projectiles should not exist because they under specific scenarios are no risk/any reward would that mean my opinion was an acceptable reason to prohibit the use of such moves?

But it matters to those matchups, and if those are the main ones the rule effects then it is doing its job

It is optional to play a bad match-up. Being aware of character weaknesses and knowing which characters are a reasonable choice to play in a competitive environment is a skill.

Brawl is also a ridiculously balanced fighter to begin with, making arbitrary rules to add more balance is really unneeded.

This game is not like those games. This change brings us closer to true balance, and this is a positive change on the game.

This game is like those games, there is no such thing as true balance, and I consider it a negative change to the game.

 

[Arcansi]

If I were to say that projectiles should not exist because they under specific scenarios are no risk/any reward would that mean my opinion was an acceptable reason to prohibit the use of such moves?

If it could hold up under logical scrutiny. Unfortunately it can't, being that it's pretty situational, the reward is negligible on its own, and there are no matchups discussions that have sentences like "we shoot, you lose" (See: DDD vs DK 'We grab, you lose)

It is optional to play a bad match-up. Being aware of character weaknesses and knowing which characters are a reasonable choice to play in a competitive environment is a skill.

1. It is not always optional to play a bad matchup.

2. If knowing which characters are a reasonable choice to play in a tournament was skill and other things like such, was MK banned for being too skilled?

Are stages with stalling (a tactic that is a competitive and tested tactic by our ruleset) banned because stalling is too skilled?

Brawl is also a ridiculously balanced fighter to begin with, making arbitrary rules to add more balance is really unneeded.

Brawl is not ridiculously balanced, even as a fighter. The % of characters you can expect to play and be able to win a tournament with is pitiful, especially in actual play.

This game is like those games, there is no such thing as true balance, and I consider it a negative change to the game.

1. You considering something to be negative doesn't mean anything, you need to provide proof that negates mine (Theres a nice set of numbers a couple of pages back in a response to aisight. (1-2, depending on your posts per page I believe))

Or you know, you could look at it the other way where the rule stating "stalling is banned" is redundant and the stalling tactics are what should be banned (which I've advocated removing said redundancy)

Why is it more effective to have two rules instead of one?

By definition in context the rules that came in last are the redundant ones. E.G. not the stalling ones.

The difference between stalling and combos lie in how they affect the matchup flow in terms of score. A combo undoubtedly changes the scoreboard in game while a stall tactics prevents a score change.

Timer is not part of the score? I mean, it allows you to win so it would seem like it has to be.

The timer is a second tier win/loss function that is entirely dependent on the first tier win/loss function of percent. Preventing a method to stalemate the primary win/loss function by means of limiting the secondary win/loss criteria is not comparable to limiting the primary win/loss criteria for the sake of limiting the primary win/loss criteria by your arbitrary whim.

The first win/loss tier is stock, or more specifically the lack of so. Stock in no way translates into percent, or vice-versa. Unfortunately, when this is said your paragraph falls apart.

K, you're dancing around issues and prolonging this. Removing the cg helps characters that falco +3's such a minimal amount, it's virtually nothing. That is my point, and it's a valid point.

I'm arguing the specifics because they matter.

Okay.

Consider pika vs fox. You can cg 3 times, then foot stool him and then put him in a position where he has exactly 4 options to avoid the grab again, 2 of which are essentially the same option. This rule helps fox, sheik, falcon and wolf a pretty minimal amount. It helps falco I guess.

a 50% chance (and another skill defining interaction!)to get away from a combo that used to pretty much kill you is nothing?

Along with the fact that pika now has to do this more then once to achieve what he used to be able to achieve with one grab?

How doesn't this rule affect ICs? Am I missing something?

Because it says with one character. IC's are two. PT is 3, so if he assumedly had some amazing chaingrab where he could down-b in it, he would be exempt too.

That would be so cool.

I think it does add complexity, and I also think it gets rid of a counter-pick aspect to the game which is a negative thing.

How does it get rid of a counter-pick aspect? You still get AMAZING returns off of a grab, they just don't define one third of the game.

 

[Alphicans]

Wait... So ICs are allowed to do their infinite under your rule?

 

[Arcansi]

Yeah.

:fluttershy:

 

[Ghostbone]

That's ridiculously dumb and biased.

 

[DeLux]

???

If Stock and then percent aren't the first tier of winning, who wins in the absence of stock/percent when the timer is 0?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Whoever assembles all five pieces of Exodia first

 

[Ghostbone]

Play coin mode instead obviously

 

[Yummy!]

This is still alive?

 

[Arcansi]

That's ridiculously dumb and biased.

How so?

???

If Stock and then percent aren't the first tier of winning, who wins in the absence of stock/percent when the timer is 0?

You need to clarify when you speak then. At first you said stock was the first tier, now you're telling me stock and then percent make up the first tier.

Which I think is incorrect.

The winner of a brawl game is whoever either A. has more stock/lower percent when the timer runs out. or B. runs the opponent out of stocks first.

:fluttershy:

 

[DeLux]

You didn't answer the question.

If timer is not a secondary tier of win/loss criteria that is dependent on stock/percent, who wins when the timer hits 0 in the absence of percent?

You just said by definition you agree that stock/percent is the primary tier that the timer is dependent on while saying you disagree that the winner when time is up is dependent on stock/percent as a win criteria.

 

[Arcansi]

You didn't answer the question.

If timer is not a secondary tier of win/loss criteria that is dependent on stock/percent, who wins when the timer hits 0 in the absence of percent?

You just said by definition you agree that stock/percent is the primary tier that the timer is dependent on while saying you disagree that the winner when time is up is dependent on stock/percent as a win criteria.

I didn't answer the question because I can't see how it applies to stuff.

Also, explain your reasoning for saying by definition.

I'm getting the definition of primary to be this

pri·ma·ry
   [prahy-mer-ee, -muh-ree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ries.
adjective
1.
first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.

How is it that because timer wins use stock and percent, and stock and percent are a wincon in themselves, that win condition becomes more important or principle? Or how would it make it first or highest in rank or importance?

:fluttershy:

 

[DeLux]

I didn't answer the question because I can't see how it applies to stuff.

Also, explain your reasoning for saying by definition.

I'm getting the definition of primary to be this

pri·ma·ry
   [prahy-mer-ee, -muh-ree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ries.
adjective
1.
first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal: his primary goals in life.

How is it that because timer wins use stock and percent, and stock and percent are a wincon in themselves, that win condition becomes more important or principle? Or how would it make it first or highest in rank or importance?

:fluttershy:

Still haven't answered the question.

One is dependent on the other in determining winning or losing the game. The timer is dependent on stock or percent in determining the winner or loser. As in the winner when the timer hits 0 seconds left is dependent on who has more stocks and/or less percent. You literally and positively cannot argue against that fact.

That being the case, it still stands that your rules inhibit a players ability to change the score on the primary level just because you want them to for "balance". Anti stalling rules prevent an uncounterable stalemate or inability to change the score in the primary score criterion at the expense of the secondary score criterion's (the timer) flow being inhibited by rules.

In that regard, comparing your anti-infinite rule to an anti-stalling rule is inherently flawed because they operate at different tiers of win/loss evaluation.

 

[Arcansi]

Still haven't answered the question.

One is dependent on the other in determining winning or losing the game. The timer is dependent on stock or percent in determining the winner or loser. As in the winner when the timer hits 0 seconds left is dependent on who has more stocks and/or less percent. You literally and positively cannot argue against that fact.

That being the case, it still stands that your rules inhibit a players ability to change the score on the primary level just because you want them to for "balance". Anti stalling rules prevent an uncounterable stalemate or inability to change the score in the primary score criterion at the expense of the secondary score criterion's (the timer) flow being inhibited by rules.

In that regard, comparing your anti-infinite rule to an anti-stalling rule is inherently flawed because they operate at different tiers of win/loss evaluation.

Kk, I concede this point.

I'm trying to find your argument against my actual rule but I can't find one.

So what is it?

 

[DeLux]

Your analogy to the LGL and limiting infinites as the same is inherently flawed because they operate at different tiers of the winning/losing criteria set forth.

The LGL is there to prevent stalling. Stalling inhibits the ability to change the score on the primary win/loss criteria at the expense of limiting abuse of the secondary criteria.

Limiting infinites is purely limiting the primary win/loss criteria for the sake of limiting the primary win/loss criteria used.

 

[Arcansi]

Your analogy to the LGL and limiting infinites as the same is inherently flawed because they operate at different tiers of the winning/losing criteria set forth.

The LGL is there to prevent stalling. Stalling inhibits the ability to change the score on the primary win/loss criteria at the expense of limiting abuse of the secondary criteria.

Limiting infinites is purely limiting the primary win/loss criteria for the sake of limiting the primary win/loss criteria used.

This does not tell me why my rule should not be, given that it balances the game and allows the primary win/loss criteria to more efficiently determine who is the better skilled player in doing so.

 

[DeLux]

Without admitting to whether it balances the game, that's an argument you can make.

But the point is that you should stop appealing to the LGL as justification for your rule.

 

[Arcansi]

Because I'm bored and all the arguments seem to have died, my current points + the current incarnation of the rule.

The Current Rule: No one character may unavoidably regrab any other one character over 3 times. (IC's are two seperate characters, FYI)

1. Balances the game further. I did a chart and the rule would have to change the average matchup by -2 in order to remove balance from the game instead of adding it.
(It has been noted that in some cases the rule barely changes anything. However, even small amounts of balance are amounts of balance.)

2. It has been noted that rules complexity will be added. If you can argue that it would be more then the balance added (for starters, try the balance added in the DK vs DDD matchup) then feel free too.

3. This rule does negatively affect Falco in some of his higher tier matchups. If you can argue this is making the rule overall bad, feel free too.

 

[DeLux]

Did you define unavoidably as to mean guaranteed regrab? There was a point earlier in the thread that even a 1 frame window of possible escape would be considered unavoidable.

Why are ICs not included in some scope of the rule given they are one of the most polarizing characters in the game?

 

[Alphicans]

Well I question if this does indeed add balance to the game. Just a rough thought process leads me to think, there are actually more negative balance changes than positive ones with this rule in place. If that was the case, would you still want this rule Arcansi?

 

[Arcansi]

Did you define unavoidably as to mean guaranteed regrab? There was a point earlier in the thread that even a 1 frame window of possible escape would be considered unavoidable.

Eh. This is true, and upon consideration I decided I'm not the person to make the call here.

TO's Discretion.

Why are ICs not included in some scope of the rule given they are one of the most polarizing characters in the game?

Grabbing is pretty much their whole metagame. I wouldn't suggest a chance to this without large amounts of evidence that doing such would further balance the game overall.

I don't think it would at all.

Well I question if this does indeed add balance to the game. Just a rough thought process leads me to think, there are actually more negative balance changes than positive ones with this rule in place. If that was the case, would you still want this rule Arcansi?

What rough thought process? I did a whole chart on it a couple days back, let me see.

NOTE: The chart is missing a few chaingrabs, but I believe they were like peach on falcon which would only move it more towards balance anyway.

[COLLAPSE="DATA!"]The garauntee can be easily predicted by looking at the matchups affected by CG's and then seeing their ratio's. Here, Let's take a look.

Yoshi on Wario
Pika on Bowser Falcon DK Falco Fox Ganon Ike DDD Link Sheik Snake Sonic Wolf ZSS
DDD on Everyone
Marth on Lucas
Falco on Everyone (35)
NOTE: These are only the ones that can go over the regrab limit of 3x. If I missed anything feel free to let me know.

(All matchup definitions are going by the official bbr matchup chart, fyi)
tons of matchups Show


Now, if we assume any given amount for a matchup change average from my rule, we can discern how much it would change our game given our current matchups.

So here goes. (Matchup changes are ALWAYS in favor of the character who is getting chaingrabbed. So +1 grabber goes to +/-0 if the average change is 1, etc.)


With an average matchup change of -1 we get a +33 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

(so 33 more matchups are made more balanced then are made more imbalanced)

With an average matchup change of -2 we get a +5 in terms of balance - imbalance ratio.

After this it becomes negative.

This would mean it would have to change the average matchup in terms of negative three, HEAVY disadvantage, for it to be a change that does not warrant balance overall.

Do you think it would do this?

NOTE: The old collapse thing that listed every matchup and its current ratio is missing from this. It's not too far back if people really need to find it though.[/COLLAPSE]

:fluttershy:

 

[Alphicans]

See you're still making the mistake of evaluating every match-up as an equal change.

I see a lot of match-ups where a cg is involved not being awful because of the cg at all. If you removed it, there would be no numerical difference. I also don't see +1 -> 0 a worthwhile change either, they're practically the same thing.

 

[Arcansi]

See you're still making the mistake of evaluating every match-up as an equal change.

I see a lot of match-ups where a cg is involved not being awful because of the cg at all. If you removed it, there would be no numerical difference. I also don't see +1 -> 0 a worthwhile change either, they're practically the same thing.

+1 is a notable advantage. If it wasn't notable, the matchup would be 0.

You see alphicans, I'm making no mistake at all.

There has to be an average somewhere, even if it's something like +0.554 overall.

What I have been able to determine is that the average matchup would have to change by something like +2.8 for the rule to not be overall balancing the game.

:fluttershy:

 

[Alphicans]

First off I can see why me saying "+1 and 0 are practically the same thing" sounds a bit weird, but I can explain. 0 doesn't really happen outside of dittos tbh. There really is no such thing as a 0 match-up, so when I say +1 and 0 are practically the same thing, I really mean it. I consider a ton of +1 match-ups to be really close to even.

I am not 100% sure what you're talking about with this average stuff, I'd appreciate if you spelled it out really well, because it seems to be the main structure for your argument.

I'd like to further explain myself. I actually narrowed it down to like 21 match-ups in the game that would change in a significant way (of course this is all in my opinion, but then again match-ups are purely opinion as well, so I have every right to use this as an argument). 10 match-ups improved balance to the game, while 11 removed balance.

Yes, the rest of the match-ups change to some degree, but the change is too little for anyone to really care about. This non-significant change is a legitimate point by the way because, for example, no one cares if D3 can't do a full stage CG vs falcon, ganon, bowser etc. because the match-up is still awful for them, even though it's slightly better for them.

 

[Arcansi]

First off I can see why me saying "+1 and 0 are practically the same thing" sounds a bit weird, but I can explain. 0 doesn't really happen outside of dittos tbh. There really is no such thing as a 0 match-up, so when I say +1 and 0 are practically the same thing, I really mean it. I consider a ton of +1 match-ups to be really close to even.

Okay.

I am not 100% sure what you're talking about with this average stuff, I'd appreciate if you spelled it out really well, because it seems to be the main structure for your argument.

There has to be an average of all the matchup changes in the game that would be affected by this.

No matter what it does overall, there has to be an average.

I can extrapolate this by applying the average value to all matchups affected by the rule.

In doing this, I can get an average overall balance change (if 12 matchups go towards balance and 11 go away from, it comes out as +1 Balance.)

I hope that makes sense.

I'd like to further explain myself. I actually narrowed it down to like 23 match-ups in the game that would change in a significant way (of course this is all in my opinion, but then again match-ups are purely opinion as well, so I have every right to use this as an argument). 10 match-ups improved balance to the game, while 11 removed balance.

What are these matchups?

Yes, the rest of the match-ups change to some degree, but the change is too little for anyone to really care about. This non-significant change is a legitimate point by the way because, for example, no one cares if D3 can't do a full stage CG vs falcon, ganon, bowser etc. because the match-up is still awful for them, even though it's slightly better for them.

The players of those characters care, and I really don't find it fair that just because people play a low tier character the rules shouldn't care about them.

Every character should matter equally under the eyes of the ruleset, or else we are blatantly favouring some over others which is a horrible decision to make in a competitive ruleset.

:fluttershy:

 

[Alphicans]

I think we've hit a point where it comes down to how you view match-ups.

I see Match-ups like:

Falco vs snake, diddy, wolf, fox, marth and lucario going from 0 to -1 or worse for falco w/o a full cg
D3 vs snake, diddy, marth, wario, pit (the same as above)

and see match-ups like:

D3 vs bowser and DK
Marth vs lucas and ness
DK vs lucas
Pika vs falco, fox, wolf and sheik being match-ups that go toward balance (from -x closer to 0)

You may disagree with my limited assessment, but this is my opinion on what match-ups would look like.

EDIT: D3 vs bowser probably isn't a change either.

 

[C.J.]

Marth/Ness isn't really a change. The grab **** is just icing. Lucas, I'm less sure about.

 

[DeLux]

Eh. This is true, and upon consideration I decided I'm not the person to make the call here.

TO's Discretion.

What if the TO is unable to determine what is and isn't guaranteed?

Grabbing is pretty much their whole metagame. I wouldn't suggest a chance to this without large amounts of evidence that doing such would further balance the game overall.

I don't think it would at all.

Seems inconsistent. You're banning infinites such as Marth's regrab on Ness because the matchup specific metagame deteriorates to the point of being the Marth regrab on Ness is pretty much the whole metagame, causing the imbalance. If this weren't the case, you'd have to admit the imbalance isn't created by infinites, and thus limiting infinites isn't the solution as infinites aren't the problem.

Yet you don't want to advocate banning IC infinites by an arbitrary clause of "2 characters", despite your admission that guaranteed grabs are "pretty much their whole metagame." Every Matchup specific metagame then deteriorates to the point of being the IC infinites are pretty much the whole metagame, causing balance?

Why is the ruleset favoring the ICs in favor of Marth?

In doing this, you've created and we uncover a huge disconnect with your original assertion that infinites lead to imbalanced gameplay. If IC infinites seem to contribute towards balance in your eyes, then you have to admit that infinites as an entity aren't necessarily agents of imbalance, thus limiting them as a group isn't justified. You'd be better off limiting the specific imbalancing agents (through creating a mod) rather than blanket limiting a tactic. By limiting infinites on a hypothetical level, you're just limiting the game to limit the game

 

[Flayl]

Alphicasns: How would the D3 matchup against Bowser not change without the CG, are you deluded

 

[Alphicans]

The rule doesn't eliminate the cg. He still gets 3 regrabs + a final throw. Bowser vs D3 would still be awful for bowser.

 

[Flayl]

edit: argh, the source of this just confused me

and you're still wrong

 

[Alphicans]

Bowser vs D3 was up in the air for me, but bowser is pretty awful, so I am pretty sure D3 would body him no matter what :/. Not that it makes any difference though.

 

[Cassio]

???

If Stock and then percent aren't the first tier of winning, who wins in the absence of stock/percent when the timer is 0?

Sudden Death. Stock is first tier but percent definitely is not. Its as arbitrary if not moreso than an lgl.

 

[DeLux]

Just because it's arbitrary doesn't mean it's not the established win/loss criteria being used. Not to mention there's in game precedence for percent being used as a criteria to tell who is winning, but not really the place to argue that point. This isn't a thread challenging percent as a means to determine winning and losing. It's a thread challenging the legality of infinites.

Arbritrary or not, the winner at time is definitely dependent on stock/percent.

If stocks are inequal, the player with more stocks as time expires wins.
If stocks are equal, the player with the lower percent total wins.
If percent is equal, they play sudden death.

The independent variable in this case being percent which is why it operates at a higher tier. The winner at time is dependent on stock/percent.

 

[C.J.]

If percent is equal, they play sudden death.

This is new to me o_O