Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[Jo3y]

Or alternatively, you could play with getting infinite d' in mind... you know, adjust your playing style.

It can be a little daunting for some >.>

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Except Snake is the ONLY one that can counter it. Not the case with DDD's infinite chaingrab which cannot be used on over 30 characters in the game.

The rest is just irrelevant *shrug*

In case this was not discussed earlier in the thread, Snake is NOT the only one who can counter it.

Jiggs could go under and punch Sonic out of it. Ness and Lucas both have a PK thunder capable of going under final destination. Pit could also possibly jump/glide down, attack, and up+b his way to safety. MetaKnight could glide down, slash, then jump a few more times and whorenado his way back up to FD. ROB could drop down and use his laser, then UP+b right back up to safety.

A portion of the cast is able to stop Sonic's stalling. Therefore, should it not be banned?

 

[old king coal]

i think that we should look at the argument from others perspective. "before you judge a man you should take a short walk in his shoes. if you still dont agree with him, you are a short walk away and he has no shoes to chase you in."

 

[Twin Dreams]

Reason why infinites are allowed:


They don't break the game.



When an infinite actually DOES break the game, then it will be banned.


For instance, ICs can infinite every character in the game from 0-999% and end with an inescapable attack. (Except ICs!!!) Why aren't they banned? Here's what happens when something is going to be banned.


1. Something really awesome is discovered (IC's alternate grab infinites in this case)

2. IC climbers win tournaments.

3. More people pick up ice climbers to win tournaments.

4. Ice Climbers win tournaments.

5. More people pick up ice climbers to win tournaments.

6. Ice Climbers dominate all tournaments.


If it's SOOOO good, then EVERY person will pick ICs EVERY time. Because it will be the only way to win. Then it is banned because it has stifled actual strategy and game progression. If you allow something and only 1 thing wins, but take it away and have MANY more options, that is something to ban.



However, until something is dominating ALL tournaments, it will not be banned. end of story.

 

[Foxy]

i like how the perfect solution, changing the way characters are picked gets mentioned 8 pages ago and is glossed over, then i quote it 1 page ago and its glossed over...if people are so opposed to banning a move, lets just improve the system so these 7 characters have a defense against counterpicking that still doesnt take the advantage away from the counterpicker.

This may include:

When someone counterpicks someone with an infinitable character (ie: you won as DK or picked DK, so i will pick DDD to completely destroy you) that character can then either repick or pick random or something (i don't care) in which case the DDD will then be able to repick to keep his entitled advantage.

This solution allows SEVEN more characters to be in the tournament scene while not doing the "forbidden" - banning infinite grabs.

The reason why this idea just isn't worth implementing is because the seven characters you say are not allowed because we aren't banning infinite grabs actually are still tournament viable, even with infinite grabs.

 

[Amide]

That has the same problem as with banning infinite grabs; how far do you go?

For instance, say you have a Meta vs. Ganondorf matchup. It's technically possible for the Ganondorf to win... but realistically, that's going to happen about as often as Ness or Lucas beat Marth. Now, do we allow you to repick that matchup as well?

Not to say that I agree with that logic, but it applies no matter what you do to stop infinites.

But the Gannon player chose Gannon thinking (wrongly) that they could outsmart the Meta. The Ness Marth one isn't about outsmarting. It simply is impossible to win. No matter what.

 

[fallenangemon0]

Kill Nana, issue solved.

The IC infinites require Nana to still be alive and for her to be desynched. Is it annoying to have to kill Nana or face possibly losing a stock from a single grab? Yah. But it's not overpowerdedly hard. Nana is easily gimped.

Just play it safe and use a character that's good at separating the ICs and kill Nana.

Yuna giving good advice without subtle insults or sarcasm?

Nice!

( jk Yuna *runs* )

 

[Patsie]

**For the people who think 'don't get grabbed' actually improves Brawl's metagame:

So I just went to my first tournament Saturday (lol), and there was someone there who used ICs basically just to get through his bracket till semis or so. He's not even an IC main, he's got a great DDD and I think Kirby; he just used IC's to win matches quickly and efficiently till he fought the best people in the tourney.

I'm not trying to say it broke the game or anything, but people who say that 'don't get grabbed' enhances the Brawl metagame are so full of crap I'm surprised they can actually type.

The matches were almost unbearable to watch. He did nothing but try to grab as the ICs (which, as people find out, I think, it's just better to play naturally and get the grab when there's an opening). The other player would play for real and then, when he got grabbed and infinited, every single person facing the ICs would play with the most mundane, boring, campy playstyle I've ever seen.

The only way to describe it would be hit and run. For instance, a Wario player that faced him would just do retreating dairs when he even approached him. There wasn't any aggressive play, and it went far beyond normal spacing. It was a boring camp-fest, and it was awful to watch.

Almost all the matches against the guy playing ICs went to a 1 stock tiebreaker because people avoided grabs so much that the matches ran out of time. Grabs from the ICs, camping from the other player. Let me tell you, by the way, nothing's more enthralling than watching two icicles continually smack someone for 1% damage each without being able to get up for 30 seconds. I love being able to watch people not be able to move while they die from the same boring ****, why else would I want to see a fighting game?

Funny thing is, the people who've been claiming that don't get grabbed adds to the metagame are probably the same ones who bash Brawl for being slow and campy. Good job suggesting something that only exacerbates the issue.

 

[MookieRah]

So I just went to my first tournament Saturday (lol), and there was someone there who used ICs basically just to get through his bracket till semis or so. He's not even an IC main, he's got a great DDD and I think Kirby; he just used IC's to win matches quickly and efficiently till he fought the best people in the tourney.

It should be pretty obvious then that his IC's aren't as good as his other characters if he only used the IC's till he ran into the best players. In other words, against those better players he would have been crushed. You guys just don't know how to handle it and thusly need to learn how to or you will be taken out by that elaborate brick wall.

If you don't know what a brick wall is, look it up on Sirlin.net

I'm not trying to say it broke the game or anything, but people who say that 'don't get grabbed' enhances the Brawl metagame are so full of crap I'm surprised they can actually type.

You are equating that in order for the metagame to be enhanced it has to be fun to watch or fun to play, both of which are factors that aren't of primary concern in competitive play to begin with. Honestly, if you are not good enough to beat a particular strategy then there is no reason not to keep spamming it the entire match.

The only way to describe it would be hit and run.

Welcome to Brawl! It's not like Melee where you can go on the offense all the time and do alright.

He did nothing but try to grab as the ICs (which, as people find out, I think, it's just better to play naturally and get the grab when there's an opening). The other player would play for real and then, when he got grabbed and infinited, every single person facing the ICs would play with the most mundane, boring, campy playstyle I've ever seen.

It sounds to me like he was just toying with you guys. Considering he has characters that were better than his IC's, my guess is that he was intentionally limiting himself to mainly grabs just to see if he could. That said, it looks like he did.

Funny thing is, the people who've been claiming that don't get grabbed adds to the metagame are probably the same ones who bash Brawl for being slow and campy. Good job suggesting something that only exacerbates the issue.

Please stop pretending like you know what you are talking about. Honestly, you are basically ranting cause you aren't good enough to prevent something that the top players aren't very worried about.

If you want to know how this advances the metagame then this is the reason: it can be avoided with skill, it promotes a new type of skill that proactive players can use to avoid grabs and while it's mainly used to get out of the particular trap it carries on against every other character as well. Because of this skill, people will be forced into learning to avoid grabs at a much faster rate than they would have. That's just a small portion.

Besides, like it's been said many many times, if it isn't broken, you don't ban it.

 

[Grunt]

It was a boring camp-fest, and it was awful to watch.

Get used to it.
Every brawl tournament you go to will be like this.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

The matches were almost unbearable to watch. He did nothing but try to grab as the ICs (which, as people find out, I think, it's just better to play naturally and get the grab when there's an opening). The other player would play for real and then, when he got grabbed and infinited, every single person facing the ICs would play with the most mundane, boring, campy playstyle I've ever seen.

So they had to switch their playstyle in order to compete? Welcome to competitive gaming.

So you're argument isn't about how infinite grabbing is breaking the game as much as it's that it makes a meta that you don't like? No one is forcing you to play Brawl and certainly not competitively.

 

[Patsie]

It should be pretty obvious then that his IC's aren't as good as his other characters if he only used the IC's till he ran into the best players. In other words, against those better players he would have been crushed. You guys just don't know how to handle it and thusly need to learn how to or you will be taken out by that elaborate brick wall.

If you don't know what a brick wall is, look it up on Sirlin.net
You are equating that in order for the metagame to be enhanced it has to be fun to watch or fun to play, both of which are factors that aren't of primary concern in competitive play to begin with. Honestly, if you are not good enough to beat a particular strategy then there is no reason not to keep spamming it the entire match.
Welcome to Brawl! It's not like Melee where you can go on the offense all the time and do alright.
It sounds to me like he was just toying with you guys. Considering he has characters that were better than his IC's, my guess is that he was intentionally limiting himself to mainly grabs just to see if he could. That said, it looks like he did.
Please stop pretending like you know what you are talking about. Honestly, you are basically ranting cause you aren't good enough to prevent something that the top players aren't very worried about.

If you want to know how this advances the metagame then this is the reason: it can be avoided with skill, it promotes a new type of skill that proactive players can use to avoid grabs and while it's mainly used to get out of the particular trap it carries on against every other character as well. Because of this skill, people will be forced into learning to avoid grabs at a much faster rate than they would have. That's just a small portion.

Besides, like it's been said many many times, if it isn't broken, you don't ban it.

I've limited myself to stop caring about this thread, or I would've replied to your other arguments (which I already answered some 4 or 5 times throughout this way-too-long thread). I'm not going to respond to this one really, either, because I don't care too much about it.

I directed that anecdote to people who said the metagame would be enhanced through 'don't get grabbed.' It wasn't an argument to ban infinites, I've given up caring on that.

But can you please stop making silly assumptions? I didn't even face the IC's player, and I've said several times throughout the thread THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN INFINITED IN ANY SORT OF COMPETITIVE PLAY. Sorry for the caps, but it's been ignored too much. I'm not someone whining because I lost to an IC player, I just came up with theoretical reasons for why I should be banned.




PS:

I think some people should redirect their attention to the discussion going on in the tournament thread about wobbling (in Melee, but I don't see the difference as within Brawl. It might be harder, but I recall Yuna saying difficulty doesn't matter?)

I'm guessing M2K is a top-player, he seems affected by IC infinites:

do you realize what you're saying

Chu dat HIMSELF admitted it's broken, as well as Azn_Lep, two top IC players. They both admit it being super broken, and they both told me themselves after they learned how to do it that it should be banned. THEY TOLD ME THIS IN PERSON. I THINK THAT KIND OF MATTERS A LOT.

I don't care what coincidences in the past you use to argue it's not broken, the FACT is it's super broken, even the majority of players who use it admit that.

EDIT: To people saying 'welcome to Brawl,' get over yourselves. The rest of the tournament went nothing like that and was fun to watch/participate in. It wasn't even close to the level of camping that these matches induced.

 

[Zankoku]

I've limited myself to stop caring about this thread, or I would've replied to your other arguments (which I already answered some 4 or 5 times throughout this way-too-long thread). I'm not going to respond to this one really, either, because I don't care too much about it.

How about you just stop bringing up this thread, then? If you don't care about the topic, and you don't care to reply to anyone, it's much better to leave it well alone instead of just bringing some arguments to your case and then going "No, I'm not going to reply to anyone telling me I'm wrong because I don't care enough."

I directed that anecdote to people who said the metagame would be enhanced through 'don't get grabbed.' It wasn't an argument to ban infinites, I've given up caring on that.

If the people who were playing the ICs player played super-campy like you said and still lost, it's pretty clear they didn't advance the metagame to the point of finding a way around a single strategy, isn't it?

But can you please stop making silly assumptions? I didn't even face the IC's player, and I've said several times throughout the thread THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN INFINITED IN ANY SORT OF COMPETITIVE PLAY. Sorry for the caps, but it's been ignored too much. I'm not someone whining because I lost to an IC player, I just came up with theoretical reasons for why I should be banned.

Did the ICs player get eliminated before you had to play him, or were you eliminated early on by two other people? If it's the former, I'm not sure of the reason why you'd bring up such an anecdote. If it's the latter......

PS:

I think some people should redirect their attention to the discussion going on in the tournament thread about wobbling (in Melee, but I don't see the difference as within Brawl. It might be harder, but I recall Yuna saying difficulty doesn't matter?)

No matter what you might claim about avoiding grabs being impossible in Brawl, the Ice Climbers definitely lost a lot of their ability to grab from Melee with the loss of mobility from wavedashing, among other things. Since the options for getting a grab are much more limited, this doesn't relate to ease of a technique but rather how many ways around a single grab there are. By the way, for someone who loves saying things like "Yuna always backtracks on his arguments!" and "I'm not going to argue with him because he doesn't stick with anything," you sure love to quote him on things that supposedly support your argument a lot.

 

[Patsie]

Did the ICs player get eliminated before you had to play him, or were you eliminated early on by two other people? If it's the former, I'm not sure of the reason why you'd bring up such an anecdote. If it's the latter......

What if it's the latter?

My bad, I forgot I'm supposed to win every tournament I enter before I can argue on Smashboards. I guess 6th is too terrible to post anymore for my very first tournament.


I brought up the thread again because I found it funny that I experienced something that related back to this thread at my first non-online 'competitive' Smash tournament. People jumped all over it as if I was saying "THIS IS PROOF THAT IT SHOULD BE BANNED LOL." I wasn't. I was saying games looked terrible when the ICs infinite'd or when people tried to avoid the infinite. That is all.

EDIT: And I stopped caring because I realized people think post count and in-game skill are excellent replacements for logic, and that most of the arguments here were going in circles. No offense to the people who legitimately argued against me, Mookie being one of those people, as are others (I think your name sounds familiar, maybe you were in that list?). But I got too fed up with the lack of constructive discussion that I abandoned my attempts here. Is that fair?

 

[Surri-Sama]

What if it's the latter?

My bad, I forgot I'm supposed to win every tournament I enter before I can argue on Smashboards. I guess 6th is too terrible to post anymore for my very first tournament.


I brought up the thread again because I found it funny that I experienced something that related back to this thread at my first non-online 'competitive' Smash tournament. People jumped all over it as if I was saying "THIS IS PROOF THAT IT SHOULD BE BANNED LOL." I wasn't. I was saying games looked terrible when the ICs infinite'd or when people tried to avoid the infinite. That is all.

EDIT: And I stopped caring because I realized people think post count and in-game skill are excellent replacements for logic, and that most of the arguments here were going in circles. No offense to the people who legitimately argued against me, Mookie being one of those people. I just got fed up with the thread and I don't want to address peoples concerns anymore.

How can you expect people to listin to you, when you cant even agree with your self, you said you wouldnt argue...but you lied....lier!!!!

 

[Patsie]

How can you expect people to listin to you, when you cant even agree with your self, you said you wouldnt argue...but you lied....lier!!!!

You're right, I'll stop now =).

 

[Zankoku]

What if it's the latter?

My bad, I forgot I'm supposed to win every tournament I enter before I can argue on Smashboards. I guess 6th is too terrible to post anymore for my very first tournament.

First of all, I didn't say any of that, though my tons of ....'s certainly did make an implication that might've provoked you into saying that. Second of all, 6th? What the hell? Were you playing in a single elimination bracket, or something?

If it's the latter, then I'm still not sure why you'd bring up the anecdote. You lost to two other things; did those strategies lose to the Ice Climbers? I dunno, if you didn't face him at all, even in friendlies, then your relevance to the strategy just by watching other people lose to him is questionable, isn't it?

I brought up the thread again because I found it funny that I experienced something that related back to this thread at my first non-online 'competitive' Smash tournament. People jumped all over it as if I was saying "THIS IS PROOF THAT IT SHOULD BE BANNED LOL." I wasn't. I was saying games looked terrible when the ICs infinite'd or when people tried to avoid the infinite. That is all.

Okay.

EDIT: And I stopped caring because I realized people think post count and in-game skill are excellent replacements for logic, and that most of the arguments here were going in circles. No offense to the people who legitimately argued against me, Mookie being one of those people. I just got fed up with the thread and I don't want to address peoples concerns anymore.

So you're pretty much just using this thread to vent about infinites and how much you hate them, but nothing else?

 

[Patsie]

First of all, I didn't say any of that, though my tons of ....'s certainly did make an implication that might've provoked you into saying that. Second of all, 6th? What the hell? Were you playing in a single elimination bracket, or something?

If it's the latter, then I'm still not sure why you'd bring up the anecdote. You lost to two other things; did those strategies lose to the Ice Climbers? I dunno, if you didn't face him at all, even in friendlies, then your relevance to the strategy just by watching other people lose to him is questionable, isn't it?


Okay.


So you're pretty much just using this thread to vent about infinites and how much you hate them, but nothing else?

I have no idea what I actually got, I left after I was knocked out. I'm just going off of what people said here http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=172349 from those who stuck around.

I don't think I lost anything by watching the round. Funny you should ask, though, the Wario player I lost to was beaten by that ICs. He DID win against the person playing ICs, but then lost twice when the guy switched to DDD. He was down 100% to like 5% on the last stock and kinda danced around for 25 seconds to force an overtime, then he won the last stock by an early Nana gimp the first game. The point was, even the game he won against them was just horrible, it consisted of him divebombing retreating dairs while the IC guy shielded and attempted to grab, and the whole thing lasted 7 minutes. The point is, I could clearly see that 'don't get grabbed' meant camping like hell and using only the absolute safest approaches as possible. I didn't need to be actually playing the game to realize it, especially since I had seen every single one of the guy's other opponents try the same strategy (but fail).

Your last comment literally completely ignores what it quoted, I'm sorry, but it doesn't address what I said in the slightest (which is part of the reason I got fed up with arguing against Yuna). I said that I got frustrated by people not engaging me in actual argumentation and opting for other strategies, save for a few people.

EDIT: Actually that's exactly the reason I stopped arguing here, people quoting things and responding as if the quote said something completely different. Would you be upset if I went:

First of all, I didn't say any of that, though my tons of ....'s certainly did make an implication that might've provoked you into saying that. Second of all, 6th? What the hell? Were you playing in a single elimination bracket, or something?

If it's the latter, then I'm still not sure why you'd bring up the anecdote. You lost to two other things; did those strategies lose to the Ice Climbers? I dunno, if you didn't face him at all, even in friendlies, then your relevance to the strategy just by watching other people lose to him is questionable, isn't it?

So that mean's you're admitting you're a bad player and that you're secretly a serial killer, right?

I would be =)


I spent a lot of time actually picking apart what people had to say and replying in kind, only to have the majority of people respond with one sentence answers that were addressed already (and also that gave strong hints that the person didn't read any of the thread). That gets taxing quickly, so I stopped caring. I think that should be a lot clearer, because I've already had to say it 6 times or so in this thread that I'm not venting.

 

[Zankoku]

I don't think I lost anything by watching the round. Funny you should ask, though, the Wario player I lost to was beaten by that ICs. He DID win against the person playing ICs, but then lost twice when the guy switched to DDD. He was down 100% to like 5% on the last stock and kinda danced around for 25 seconds to force an overtime, then he won the last stock by an early Nana gimp the first game. The point was, even the game he won against them was just horrible, it consisted of him divebombing retreating dairs while the IC guy shielded and attempted to grab, and the whole thing lasted 7 minutes. The point is, I could clearly see that 'don't get grabbed' meant camping like hell and using only the absolute safest approaches as possible. I didn't need to be actually playing the game to realize it, especially since I had seen every single one of the guy's other opponents try the same strategy (but fail).

Given your description of the ICs player's "strategy," I can tell you right now that severely boring play is not limited to just avoiding an ICs infinite. Playing against anyone who doesn't play dynamically but hides behind a single abusable strategy (shieldgrabs, shield ftilts, shield something, usually) will typically result in extremely systematic play. When I played against someone who did nothing but throw projectiles and shieldgrab, I pretty much spammed Marth fairs out of his range against his shield until he either got poked or retreated. Did he get smart to this? No, he just rolled away and this would repeat until I hit him enough to kill him. For the rest of about 6 minutes.

Do you deal with a bad campy player in creative ways every time? Or would you keep using what works until he either deals with it or loses? Nobody's going to advance the metagame against someone who barely even has a part in it.

So that mean's you're admitting you're a bad player and that you're secretly a serial killer, right?

Wow, way to both point out the obvious and give away my secret all in a single sentence. Now you hurt my feelings.

 

[Patsie]

Given your description of the ICs player's "strategy," I can tell you right now that severely boring play is not limited to just avoiding an ICs infinite. Playing against anyone who doesn't play dynamically but hides behind a single abusable strategy (shieldgrabs, shield ftilts, shield something, usually) will typically result in extremely systematic play. When I played against someone who did nothing but throw projectiles and shieldgrab, I pretty much spammed Marth fairs out of his range against his shield until he either got poked or retreated. Did he get smart to this? No, he just rolled away and this would repeat until I hit him enough to kill him. For the rest of about 6 minutes.

Do you deal with a bad campy player in creative ways every time? Or would you keep using what works until he either deals with it or loses? Nobody's going to advance the metagame against someone who barely even has a part in it.


Wow, way to both point out the obvious and give away my secret all in a single sentence. Now you hurt my feelings.

That's very true. But I think there's a difference:

Someone who spams shield/counter all the time will consistently get punished for it. Sure, the result is consistent grabbing, but eventually the player will learn that the shielding only screws him over unless he starts to attack. Just like someone who spams rolldodge and gets clobbered by dsmash will adapt a new strategy quickly once ol' faithful starts failing him. You can say that for a lot of predictable strategies, and, though it gets one-sided and systematic, the person spamming will ultimately change because it doesn't work.

In this fight, at least, the person was campy and the IC player just went for grabs. But even people who adopt hit and run strategies get grabbed sometimes, and when that happened, he just died and was up a stock. The system doesn't have to change because it's so stacked in the infinite's favor.

The difference then, I think, is that spammers get beaten by people with sure-fire strategies against their particular spamming move. Don't get grabbed, though, is an inherently defensive and easily beat strategy that will still favor the person with the infinites.

So just from looking at this match:

The Wario had to adopt a system of camping//hit and run to avoid the grab, and so didn't change his systematic playing because it was his only option. The Ice Climbers player didn't change his system because he didn't have to, he still won anyway. That's why I think it was more stale than the matches you were describing.

But anyway, you might be right on this issue if you choose to respond, but I really think I should stick to my first notion of abandoning the thread after this, if I'm addicted to anything it's this game and arguing (so this is a dangerous mix). You broke the mold though of responding intelligently, so I very much appreciate it, and I'm sorry that I won't respond to your responses anymore but I don't have the time.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I Knew It! Ever Since You Gave Me Those Soggy Cookies !

Ankoku Is A Serial Killer! He Murders Hopes And Dreams!

 

[Niko_K]

So what risk is associated with the IC CG? Next to none. You might get 20 damage but yknow, combo's in brawl are non-existent so you get away with a missed grab without heavy damage. If an IC misses a grab it barely affects the match. Though if an IC gets off a grab it will cost you a stock unless the player messes up. If it was melee and an IC main missed a grab it could easily cost them a ton of damage or even a stock.


Also if IC mains like ChuDat and Azn_Leap or saying its broken and should be banned, maybe we should take a better look at it and not use strategies from melee to justify why the IC CG isn't broken.

It's broken, a grab = death, while a missed grab = oh well, Ill wait for another opening.

/awaiting flames from angry IC mains.

 

[ShadowLink84]

INdeed its not like you can punish as heavily as you used to and therefore balance things out.
Basically your opponent when punished takes at most 25% damage.
While in melee it was maybe twice that much at least.
So even if they knock your stock off you could kill them early and bring balance to things.
in this game where the defensive game is stronger, punishing isn't as good as it used to be, so punishing a spammer doesn't force them to stop spamming.

*shrug*
Meh I dislike all infinites in general though

 

[Grunt]

2 people are not a majority.

If you argue "people can and will master the IC infinite adn use it to break tournaments." then why can't people master not getting grabbed?

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

Seriously.

As far as IC grab goes JUST KILL NANA!

 

[dj_pwn1423]

I think killing Popo is way more effective...

but thats just my opinion.

 

[ShadowLink84]

2 people are not a majority.

If you argue "people can and will master the IC infinite adn use it to break tournaments." then why can't people master not getting grabbed?

Because the tactics applicable in melee don't necessarily work as well in Brawl.

Saying don't get grabbed in melee is different from saying don't get grabbed in brawl.

Mainly because of the changes in the gameplay as well as the lack of L canceling (which was useful for avoiding grabs)


IMO its best to just kill of Popo or Nana whoever is there. I think its easier in that game
Still it would help if there was L canceling since my poor Link can't approach very safely T_T

 

[DippnDots]

JOHNS

fixed

Spoiler

10 chars

 

[Statistics]

wanna avoid getting grabbed?

1) pick snake
2) if the ICs are anywhere in your vicinity, shield-drop a grenade, and hold shield
3) roll away if they don't come after you
4) ???
5) Profit !!

That's one way, the other is to play campy, or "boring" as the uninformed call it.

But seriously, who cares if it's boring and why? the match is more important than the spectators.

 

[lordXblade]

How did this thread grow so much? Someone should have just cited Magneto in marvel, and ended this ******** debate. Stop being *****es, and learn to fight it.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

How did this thread grow so much?

Because neither side is willing to concede? No one's just going to give up when there are at least two sides discussing a mechanic that can possibly degrade the game.

 

[lordXblade]

Because neither side is willing to concede? No one's just going to give up when there are at least two sides discussing a mechanic that can possibly degrade the game.

Like I said: Magneto. Discussion over.

Edit: I'll even give you guys an example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ine-bzXdszA

There is nothing in Brawl that is more broken than 1 touch=death play in Marvel. Yet ROM infinite is not banned, because there are ways to not get hit. Sanford got completely outclassed and outplayed by Yipes that round, and if you get CGed by ICs/DDD, you got outplayed by your opponent, because there are ways to avoid it. Is it gay? Absolutely, but so is storm runaway, a turtling chun-li, and Marth gimps in Melee. Learn to fight it, and stop whining about it.

 

[MookieRah]

How did this thread grow so much?

I said it in that post I made that was quoted 50 times. There is a maturity that comes with competitive gaming that isn't shared by all of it's members. Patsie isn't mature enough to accept that just because something is perceived as lame, it doesn't mean that they should complain about it when it hasn't been proven broken. Nobody says you have to like it, but what is the point in trying to debate the lameness of something in a thread that is discussing if it is or isn't ban worthy?

But even people who adopt hit and run strategies get grabbed sometimes, and when that happened, he just died and was up a stock. The system doesn't have to change because it's so stacked in the infinite's favor.

Which is why the ICs player didn't play the ICs against the good people? Wait, that contradicts everything you are saying. Obviously he couldn't beat the best people with that strategy and had to switch. Obviously there are ways around it, and the guys he was crushing were not experienced enough or adaptable enough to handle it.

I'm gonna try to summarize what you have been saying, just as a way to verify:

1: You haven't been affected by the IC chain grab.
2: You have seen someone abuse a single strategy to beat a bunch of lower end players at a tournament.
3: The IC player didn't play ICs against the best players.
4: You are saying that people who haven't experienced it before couldn't adapt to it on the fly.

If all this info is right, then there is nothing to worry about. People have always been foiled by a tactic that they aren't used to, even if they are good players. If they haven't played against someone who uses this trick then it's a lot harder to counter it on the fly. It's just something new and people aren't used to it, and they label it as cheap and whatnot cause it has stirred up a lot of contraversy.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Because neither side is willing to concede? No one's just going to give up when there are at least two sides discussing a mechanic that can possibly degrade the game.

MookieRah already won.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

Doesn't mean idiots don't know when to shut up.

 

[Empy]

How did this thread grow so much?.

That I did expect, what surprises me, is that this guy makes quadruple posts and doesn't get banned.

 

[mynaymeisadam]

Fourth, people say it's essential to the playstyles of certain characters. That's complete horsesh*t. DDD doesn't need to infinite people to win a match. The ICs certainly don't either, and reliance on it just limits IC players for digging deeper Brawl's metagame. Stop using this excuse as a bad cop-out for not wanting to get better.

Is it just me, or does this sound extremely ********? Snake doesn't need his mortar slide,his up tilt, or his up smash to win, but those are important aspects of his game (I am just using this as an example, I don't play Snake). DDD happens to have an incredible advantage over 5 characters. Snake seems to have an incredible advantage over every character, so should we ban everything that makes Snake what he is? No, we shouldn't. No character needs any single move or strategy to win. You can say what Patsie said about any character and move. Like Diddy and his bananas (I do main Diddy). I can win w/o them, but they are very important, and not using them would be ********. I especially don't understand the part where Patsie says to

"stop using this as an an excuse as a bad cop-out for not wanting to get better."

Seriously, what are you talking about?

 

[Grunt]

"stop using this as an an excuse as a bad cop-out for not wanting to get better."

Agreed.
People found these infinites because they wanted to get better.

 

[MaxThunder]

... i think infinities should be outlawed... and patsie... HOW THE HELL DO YOU MANAGE TO WRITE SO FREAKISHLY LONG POSTS????

 

[Patsie]

Normally it's because I'm at work, and for some reason the work they give interns is always finished in like 2 hours and we have around 2 days to peruse the internet before we get more.

Mookie:
Have we resorted to name-calling now? Thank you for categorizing me as immature off of my posts, but in the future, I would think that you should back up your assumptions.

You either did not read the whole thread or didn't comprehend the posts I made in the thread, because I already answered your original argument. That's one of the reasons I don't want to argue against you; I answered what you had to say somewhere in these 40 pages, and I didn't feel that you deserved a response if you didn't actually look at what I had to say. Second, I had stopped replying to arguments against infinites because it was becoming a circular flame-fest with little constructive posting occuring.

And let me further make this clear: I do not want to continue arguing about infinites, as I feel I've made my points and exhausted the subject.

The point of this reply, then, is to tell you to stop making assumptions. I attempted to show that infinites were 'broken' using the same standards by which we have banned other things in the past. You literally ignored every response I've given in this thread and passed it off as "whining and complaining." Not only did I explicitly address that issue previously (which you either did not read or ignored), but, from the very first post I made, you should have known the difference between a reasoned argument and an empty complaint.

Please have a modicum of respect for other posters and have a justification before you assume that someone is immature, especially if your assumption has been previously disproven.


Also: I know it feels good to have people quote you and say 'Mookie won this thread' without any reasons for why or how, but they don't really verify your claim, just as people who post one-liners about how they hate infinites don't verify my claims.

EDIT: Sorry about the multi-posts early on, I was caught up in arguing other people. I don't see why you would want me banned because of it, but I can assure you it wasn't to buffer the post count of this thread.