Overview of "Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?"

[GofG]

Argument: Infinites should be banned in all cases.

OP:

I'm positive that this has been discussed before, and several 'elite' posters decided on the result to suggest that infinites remain in tournaments.

But, of all the justifications that I can think of, I can't really see why people would actually encourage infinites to be part of a tournament.

In Melee, there weren't many infinites, and the ones that existed (iirc) were not easy to perform. The result was that things like shine infinites never lasted long, because it became humanly impossible to do it over a long period of time. Wobbling was an exception (as it was a bit easier), and it proved to be one of the more controversial aspects of Melee.

Brawl is different. There are tons of characters who can be next to a wall, hold down, and press the 'A' button indefinitely until they decide to kill their opponent. Even non-situational infinites like DDD's chaingrab are extremely easy. I don't even play DDD, and I could get the timing down in 30 minutes without fail; hell, even my 13-year-old sister could do it and she plays the game maybe an hour on a weekend. Infinites are easy, TAKE NO SKILL, and they are extremely unfair.

My biggest problem with infinites is that they completely change the aspect of the game. YOU ARE NOT REALLY PLAYING A MULTIPLAYER FIGHTING GAME WHEN YOU ARE USING AN INFINITE. That is, your opponent has lost all control of your character; IT IS YOU AGAINST THE COMPUTER. All YOU have to do is input certain things in a certain time, and you're guaranteed success. It's like you're playing Pacman or Tetris, because there is no multiplayer aspect of infinites whatsoever: the only thing that depend on it are your timing of inputs, which inherently makes it a single-player mentality/ability.

Posters who want to revert to Melee tournaments often call for a competitive standard. I'm not going to get into that debate, but I will stress that infinites are the least competitive thing you can actually do. The reason why we all love multiplayer games is because there's some aspect of offense and defense: you have to react and predict an opponent's abilities.

Silly analogy: This applies to any game, sport, etc. For instance, I think basketball is infinitely (lol) more entertaining/competitive than, say, golf or bowling. This isn't because of the actual nature of the game, but rather it's because you play against a team. It's a sport, which means that you actually have someone playing defense (you actually have someone AFFECTING YOUR GAMEPLAY). Golf is more like a competition, because you just perform individually and then your performances are matched up at the end (your opponent doesn't influence you in any way aside from mentally).

Multiplayer games should be the same way. I keep playing them because I don't just have to input a command and have the computer give me a result; I play them because they are consistently dynamic because my opponent always influences gameplay. I think this is an element of fighting games (and all sorts of multiplayer games: Halo, Street Fighter, etc) that can be agreed upon as essential.

So, now you can see why, in theory, I believe infinites shouldn't be allowed: they contradict a vital element of most fighting games in that they eliminate competition.

Why do we allow it, then? I've heard some reasons, but I don't think I agree with many.

You can't impliment infinite rules into tournaments is one. First, realize that this defense tacitly accepts that infinites are wrong, but they counter that stopping them would be impractical. The main defense is that there is no brightline for when to stop infinites or how to enforce them. When do we know, for example, how many grabs from DDD count as a bannable infinite? This point has always been solid, but I don't think it's enough to stop banning infinites. Manipulating the words of some quote on pr0n, "You just know infinites when you see them." Obviously, this is arbitrary, and any tournament rule would create a brightline for itself. But, then again, all rules are kind of arbitrary; why do we ban the stages that we do, and why do we keep some on? We base decisions like that on underlying principles (for example, stages should minimize the amount of outside influence/hazards), but ultimately we make an arbitrary decision. And, to be honest, people are kind-of missing the point. If rules were implemented to stop infinites, people would stop doing them if they knew they might get kicked out. Even if they weren't, infinites overall would be limited, and I don't think anyone in the community actually enjoys getting infinite'd or enjoys seeing them pulled off (basically, the only people who would throw up arms are like the DDD forums and the IC forums, lol).

Second, people argue that we can't limit aspects of the game. Why not? We limit items from the game to minimize luck and maximize competitivity. We limit stage choices arbitrarily for the same reason. We even limit certain aspects of movesets. For instance, Sonic can't repeatedly B-stall, but he's free to use that move in any other situation that doesn't involve stalling. Basically, we wouldn't limit DDD's downthrow, as he can still chaingrab etc; he just would be banned for using it in a situation that's considered an infinite.

Third, people say it doesn't actually happen often enough for tournaments to consider them. This really doesn't make sense to me. If it happens at all, we should have a rule for it. If it wouldn't affect the majority of people that don't use infinites, then that's great, but at the very least we've limited the people who would use it. Regardless of whether not many people do it, IN NO SITUATION should a player (like DK) go into a match knowing that he will lose because he faces a DDD who is going to infinite him.

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.

Fifth, people argue that infinites are situational. Basically: you won't get infinited UNLESS you're a) near a wall or b) you get grabbed by someone. Is it just me, or is that the dumbest thing you've ever heard? Saying 'Don't get grabbed' just makes people play incredibly campy and only using ridiculous range, which ruins the game. But even then, you're going to get grabbed. Unless you're facing a BOCES candidate, you will probably not get through more than 2 games without getting grabbed, even if you're trying your best to avoid it. Look, I'm not going to even debate this point. If you think infinites are 'combos' that are justified because you allowed yourself to get grabbed, then you are an idiot. It's as simple as that.

TLDR: Infinites go against the main tenet of all multiplayer games by eliminating competitivity.

Comment and stuff, because I'm legitimately curious as to why they're allowed to exist.

Tl;dr OP:

Infinites should not be allowed because:

T.) Infinites limit gameplay in a way that hurts competitive Brawl.

1. Once in an infinite, the victim can do nothing to increase his chances of getting out; all he can do is hope that the aggressor makes a mistake. This draws from the competitive aspect of the game.
2. In Melee, some infinites were allowed, but these were exceedingly difficult to perform. Wobbling was the easiest, and it was banned in some tournaments.

1.) They are easy to detect and enforce, and even if they weren't people wouldn't try to do them for fear of being kicked out.
2.) We ban some uses of other moves, such as sonic's b stalling, so you cannot use the argument that we should not limit gameplay in this manner.
3.) It does not hurt the characters who have infinites that much if we ban infinites.
4.) They can be impossible to avoid at times.

Primary counterargument:

(Regarding ease of use)

How easy something is to do is inconsequential. If it's possible, then someone will learn how to do it properly and reliably.

(Regarding impossibility of recovery)

You know what, a lot of things are really broken and unfair and guaranteed or pretty much guaranteed if done right. Well boohoo. Where does it end? Do we ban Falco's chaingrab that takes certain characters from 0-40%? Heck, that's 40 friggin' percent! Do we ban certain attacks because they kill certain other characters way too early?

Let's pretend that your opponent, a Snake player, breaks your shield. This is believable given Snake's Ftilt. You have messed up in letting Snake break your shield. He will proceed to fully charge an Fsmash, without a doubt, killing you instantly. You have no control over the outcome of this situation; as soon as your shield broke, you were no longer in the game. Your opponent was playing against a CPU.

Getting infinited is similar, it's just that it's the same punishment for less of a mistake. You got grabbed, and that was a mistake that you are being punished for. However, infiniting with the Iceys is considerably harder to do than charging an fsmash with Snake. So is infiniting with D3. They'll mess up at some point, and it should only be regarded as a guaranteed combo that did a lot of damage.

Quotes from Sirlin regarding this topic:

Sirlin's three criteria for banning:​

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it. In a fighting game, a trick might make a move invulnerable that shouldn’t be, but actually detecting every time the trick is used might be nearly impossible. Or consider a real-time strategy game, where a trick might give your units a few more hit points than normal, but again, detecting this might be nearly impossible in a real game. If something is to be banned from tournament play, it must be reasonably easy to identify when it happens or to prevent it from ever happening at all.

Also in a fighting game, a move might be “unfairly” unblockable, but only when that move is executed in a certain situation with precise 1/60th of a second timing. Did the player execute it during that “unfair” time window? Or 1/60th of a second late? Perhaps he accidentally executed the move at the unfair time through sheer luck. Is he to be penalized? Imagine trying to enforce a rule that states “You may usually use move X, but there’s 1/60th of a second where you may not use move X.”

All infinites in Brawl are easily recognizable and enforcable, so they fit this criteria.

Discrete

The thing to be banned must be able to be “completely defined.” Imagine that in a fighting game, repeating a certain sequence of five moves over and over is the best tactic in the game. Further suppose that doing so is “taboo” and that players want to ban it. There is no concrete definition of exactly what must be banned. Can players do three repetitions of the five moves? What about two reps? What about one? What about repeating the first four moves and omitting the fifth? Is that okay? The game becomes a test of who is willing to play as closely as possible to the “taboo tactic” without breaking the (arbitrary) letter of the law defining the tactic.

Or in a first-person shooter game, consider the notion of banning “camping” (sitting in one place for too long). No friendly agreement between the players is necessary for the ban, which at least means it’s enforceable. The server can monitor the positions of players, and it knows exactly who breaks the rule and can hand out penalties accordingly. The ban is enforceable, but the problem is being able to completely define camping. If camping is defined as staying within one zone for 3 minutes, and if it really is the best tactic, then sitting in that zone for 2 minutes 59 seconds becomes the best tactic. It’s a slippery slope because there will always exist camping tactics arbitrarily close to the specific kind of camping that is banned.

Here’s an example of a completely defined game element. In the card game Magic: The Gathering, if a particular card is deemed to be too good, then it is possible to ban it. One can define completely that “that card cannot be used.” There is no fear of players still “sort of” using it, in the same way they could still “sort of” repeat the moves from the fighting game, or “sort of” camp for 2 minutes 59 seconds above. The card is a discrete entity that can feasibly be banned.

Infinites fail this criteria, and as such, Sirlin would not ban them.

Warranted

Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

A bug that gives players a small advantage does not warrant a ban. In fact, it’s common. Many players don’t even realize they are using bugs, but instead view them as “advanced tactics.” Even bugs that have a huge effect on gameplay are usually not warranted to be banned. The game may change with the new tactic, but games are resilient and there tend to be countermeasures (sometimes other bugs) to almost everything.

<snip>

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

Ice Climbers are barely in the top third of the Tier List v1.0, and have not won nearly as many tournaments as anyone above them. King DDD is top tier, and does eliminate some of the characters he can infinite from competitive gameplay, but he is still nearly a thousand points below Snake and Metaknight on Ankoku's point system (he has roughly 500 points at the time of this writeup.) Players who know that they are going up against a D3 have the option of changing characters, unlike Ice Climbers, and the Ice Climbers are still much lower.

Conclusion: In order to prove that infinites should be banned, one must prove that that they break the game to a point where it is no longer competitive. As such, they do not accomplish this, and are tournament legal.

 

[okiyama]

I'm surprised that there's anyone that would support infinites. They just don't make sense. The fact that there is simple nothing you can do once it has began is stupid to the max.

I am not a hypocrite either, I am against wobbling.

 

[GofG]

No one "supports" infinites. They just aren't broken enough to be removed.

You live in ann arbor; go talk to anther or levitas or scotu.

Btw you should read this post.

 

[Roihu]

They aren't broken enough to be removed? Pity....
How exactly broken DOES it need to be?

 

[GofG]

Read the thread. It's only 4 posts long.

 

[Doggalina]

Ice Climbers are BELOW DK in tourney rankings AND tier placement and they can easily 0 to death him with Wobbles. I know that tiers take into account viability against the whole cast, but this is important. Also, DK is in a high spot on the tier list despite the ICs CH AND DDD's infinite. Same goes for tourney rankings. Infinites are not at the point where they are bannable. Not even close. Hell, MK dominates the tourney scene more than infinites.

 

[Dumah]

Enforceable

Sometimes, a tactic can be hard to detect. If you can’t reliably detect something, you certainly can’t enforce penalties on it

The examples given in strategy games and other fighting games are hard to compare with Brawl. The reason is, is because Brawl is very much a standalone game. There's nothing else on the market like this game. So if you want to call it a competitive fighting game, then even if an infinite happens 1 time, or can happen 1 time, you need to ban. Every other competitive fighting game would hold their game to that standard. It's unfair and broken, and does nothing to further the character or game. Ban it.

If you don't really think Brawl is a comparable competitive fighting game, more like the strange cousin of fighting games, then you need to have a specific set of rules that govern the fairness of play. You also need to allow for those rules to change and to have huge amounts of testing done to determine the fairness of it. And during all that testing, you can't compare it to other fighting games. And after you've done all that, your conclusions need to be consistent with everything else. That's kind of difficult to do..no? Tough. This is the game you've decided to play competitively, so stop whining and find solutions to fix the problems. An infinite may be hard to detect. Tough sh*t. Detect it and put a rule on it. It it's so hard to detect, how did "they" come to the conclusion that it isn't a bannable move? It couldn't have been that hard to find if it fits perfectly into these 3 criteria for banning. *gasp* That means it isn't hard to detect and it should be banned because not 1 person thinks it's fair.

Discrete

This is the exact same thing as Enforceable. How do you enforce something that is hard to detect, is basically the same question these two points are addressing.

Warranted

Here is the whole issue, of course. If it isn’t warranted to ban something, we don’t need to even consider whether it’s enforceable or discrete. The great lesson of competitive games is that hardly anything warrants a ban.

The great lesson of competitive games is that people will abuse any glitch or overpowered move, to any extent to get a win. And they will continue to do so until something stops them from doing it. If infinite dimensional cape wasn't banned, everyone would do that. If stages with wall infinites weren't banned, everyone would try to do those.

This is not a question of whether or not it warrants a ban, because that question is ridiculous. Every player that has an infinite at their disposal will use it. It's not even a question of whether or not it's enforceable, because it is. It's a question of why are people so dam stubborn to realize that the game is broken enough that you need some extreme rules to yank it back into fairness and competitiveness.