The Issue of Infinite Combos

[illinialex24]

Stop trying to be facetious, it would be quite easy to enforce a ban, you would just call a judge and theres always replays.
Also, your title has jack **** to do with the validity of your points

Also, you could pick brinstar, norfair, or rainbow cruise to limit d3s infinites
Fox was unviable even before the pikachu infinites were discovered, and there are alot of things yoshi and bowser do to certain characters that would need to be banned under those criteria

Your hilarious. Considering you know nothing, why don't you choose to lead discussion? I'd love to have a good laugh. Just because Fox has issues with characters doesn't mean he's completely unviable, it means its hard to win with him. It also require some luck. The chance of not finding a Pikachu/ZSS or another character who will beat you in a tournament isn't as low as you'd think, a good Fox can still win.

And people have proven that even in high levels of play, you can still kill 1 climber. It is not impossible.

Lain and Meep are just really ****ing good at not letting Nana die. Hence why they are the higher placing (only winning?) Ice Climbers.

And Anther shows by constantly beating Lain or being able to more often beat Lain that you can beat chain grabbing psychos.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

o.O

The chaingrab as punishment isn't enough? (I mean, if DDD relied on it to be viable and without it was just a useless character that would be one thing, but he doesn't...at all...)

The thing is about Dedede, is even if you took the CG out of the picture. Hes still a really great character.

While i do believe Dedede's CG is part of what makes him, who he is in brawl. I also feel that Dedede has alot more to offer the player than just the CG. When you think of the tier list abit, alot of the characters you see that are top tier have alot of very unique and very good tools for not only punishing quickly, but also tools to deal with a vast majority of the cast. That is generally the reason why top tier material is where it is.

 

[BSP]

I think the infinites should stay in. It's not like they affect a huge portion of the cast. If someone is D3, just don't be someone who can be infinited.

 

[superyoshi888]

Infinites are a part of Brawl. If you don't like them, go play Brawl+.

 

[Xebenkeck]

I think the infinites should stay in. It's not like they affect a huge portion of the cast. If someone is D3, just don't be someone who can be infinited.

But as the game is continuing to evolve more and more characters are having infinates found on them.

Also, doesn't anyone notice that almost all the top tiers don't have an infinate on them(excluding IC). Where almost all the lower tiers characters do.

MK-no-s tier
Snake-no s-tier
Wario-yes-only against yoshi, and caught on his second jump. So highly situational s-tier
Diddy-no s-tier
Falco-no- s tier
Marth-no a-tier
IC-no a-tier
olimar-no a-tier
pikachu-no-a tier
G&W-no- a-tier

oppose to lower characters

Ganon-yes -ftier
Link-none that im aware of f tier
Samus-yes f-tier
Mario-yes -e-tier
Luigi-yes - c-tier
Ness-yes -e-tier
lucas- yes -e-tier
Bowser-yes-d-tier

We then complain about how unbalanced the game is, yet we don't ban things that don't even affect the top tier characters, so they won't drop in thier postitions. yet we continue to make sure the lower tier characters remain low and unviable by keeping infinates. We completly limit them from ever entering the metagame. Look at DK when D3 infinate is banned he is a completly viable character, yet with it, pick D3 and you win. Who's to say Luigi can't be a viable char, who's to say Ness or Lucas won't turn out better and be solid Mid -tier characters. Or mario,or bowser. Or sam..........nvm. If we keep infinates there is no way of ever telling.

 

[kuenzel]

But as the game is continuing to evolve more and more characters are having infinites found on them.

That's not necessarily true. It could also be said that as the game continues to evolve more and more characters are finding ways to get out of infinites. It could go either way. Or even stay the same. We don't know.

 

[Nefarious B]

There aren't really that many infinites right now, or even many zero to deaths. If a character found an infinite on the entire cast that made them overwhelmingly better than any other character, then yeah ban it. But the situation we have right now is just that certain characters get hard countered by others, and that is definitely not ban worthy.

 

[Roager]

There aren't really that many infinites right now, or even many zero to deaths. If a character found an infinite on the entire cast that made them overwhelmingly better than any other character, then yeah ban it. But the situation we have right now is just that certain characters get hard countered by others, and that is definitely not ban worthy.

Think of it this way. If, let's say, Character A has an infinite on B, and C has an infinite on D, then A and C become higher tiered. Not banworthy, but true. If, instead, A infinites B, and C infinites B, B becomes very low tiered, and A and C are semi-high. Similarly, if A infinites B and C, then A is certainly high tier. If the game only has the four characters, A is only countered by D, since D is non-infinitable. Thus match variations are shot to hell, having A and D being the only popular characters.

Point is, since infinites DO affect tiers and balance, one must consider HOW exactly they affect it. Infinites aren't nearly as prevalent as the example, but you get the point. Infinites have the ability to all-but-eliminate characters from the metagame. If you could counterpick by picking an infinite-bearing character, then the infinite-recieving character loses popularity, which stagnates their development.

I'm not saying infinites need to be banned, but they do need to be watched. Bans might need to happen, and they might not. As of yet, I don't know. But it IS very important.

 

[Xebenkeck]

^^^wouldn't you say ness and lucas are pretty stagnent right now?

 

[Twin Dreams]

I'm sorry, but you can't simply ban infinites.....


please explain to me how you will go about banning an infinite in a tournament setting?


Infinite Example 1: Single attack

How many cycles can a person perform?
What if a person leaves enough time to get out between waves of this single attack?
What if a person must use this attack necessarily (to recover, for example) and it happens to hit the person?
What if a person performs it accidently?

Infinite Example 2: Combo attack 1,2,3,4,5

Let's assume that 1,2,3,4,5 is a combo. Move 5 resets to move 1.

Is 1 banned?
Is 1,2 banned?
Is 1,2,3 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4,5 banned?
Is 2 banned?
Is 2, 3 banned?

and so on...



tl;dr: Give me your clear, concise ruling on how infinites will be banned in a tournament setting.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Apart from a CG, where do you even see Infinites being properly used all the time? It's typically maybe one stock that it ever ends up working out right.

 

[Praxis]

Um. This is all just theorycrafting. I haven't seen any technically viable infinites that are used much outside of very matchup-specific ones (ZSS on ROB and Dedede on DK) and Ice Climbers- and ICs infinites perfectly compliment the character, they are low tier without and low high/high mid with.

The Pikachu infinite? People don't know how to SDI. The Sheik infinite? Escapable. The Peach infinite on Wario? Too technical to reliably do and easily escapable on any stage but FD and even escapable on FD with really good SDI and patience.


Most of the "infinites" found don't really matter that much, except ICs and DK/Dedede.


Let's not even get in to the problem of actually enforcing it. Banning Dedede's infinite means banning grab > grab. Is grab > running grab legal? how about grab > walking grab? Making those kinds of distinctions brings you to touchy territory.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

I don't think anyone wants the Ice Climbers infinite banned. Well except scrubs. lol

I think the real issue is D3 standing regrab on DK which COULD be limited. But it's whether or not it's right to. DDD ****s up a lot of characters. We should just ban picking DDD in double blinds. lol


Edit: What kind of infinite could POSSIBLY occur by RECOVERING? That'd be ridiculous. lmao

 

[Twin Dreams]

You didn't get my point.

If a single move can be used as an infinite as well as recovering and you ban it's use..... can you still recover with it?



Also, it isn't about "whether or not it's right to", it's about winning tournaments.

 

[Terios the Hedgehog]

I don't mean whether or not it's MORALLY right to.

 

[ConCeal12]

Well infinites like the jab cancel is really hard to pull off and take lots of practice to actually pull off mid battle. An infinite like that is pretty fair besides, its limited to your distance to the edge. banning stuff like that isn't right

 

[Dream Chaser]

I'm sorry, but you can't simply ban infinites.....


please explain to me how you will go about banning an infinite in a tournament setting?


Infinite Example 1: Single attack

How many cycles can a person perform?
What if a person leaves enough time to get out between waves of this single attack?
What if a person must use this attack necessarily (to recover, for example) and it happens to hit the person?
What if a person performs it accidently?

Infinite Example 2: Combo attack 1,2,3,4,5

Let's assume that 1,2,3,4,5 is a combo. Move 5 resets to move 1.

Is 1 banned?
Is 1,2 banned?
Is 1,2,3 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4,5 banned?
Is 2 banned?
Is 2, 3 banned?

and so on...



tl;dr: Give me your clear, concise ruling on how infinites will be banned in a tournament setting.

You can just agree on a set number. You can eaily choosethat doing move 1 after move 5 in the combo is banned. If another way to turn the combo into an infinate is discovered we can just ban it as soon as its discovered to be an infinate.

You have to draw the line somewhere. Saying that the line is too blurry to draw isnt an excuse. In the end, it gets the job done, is it so hard?

Which infinates are we talking about here anyway?
I dont see any reason to ban the ice climber's infinate grab.
I do think that DeDeDe's grab on DK (and bowser and charizard?) deserves being banned because of how easy it is to grab an execute the standing D-throw infinate.

In terms of method, like I said earlier, its not so hard to choose a line, you could just say that regrabbing is banned (or at least if you regrab you cannot damage them in case you accidenatlly regrab)

 

[Pierce7d]

At least mario can PS the Fair and shieldgrab and proceed to punish.

Can mario PS the grab? Dont really think so. And the grab does all this stuff to mario as well.

Mario CANT approach with aerials/DA causa a shieldgrab = death. The grab limits mario more then a Marth's fair. While with the fair, there are attacks thay may clanck/beat it and rack some%, there isnt a single thing you can do with the grab besides camping. And really, DDD can enter a camping zone pretty easily and just get that grab.

And no, a move in wich it can clank/be hit like the fair, ISNT a more "safe/reliable" tool than a grab.

But you got me, grabs cant edgeguard as well as the Fair. ^^

Edit: Just to prove a point, i dont want Infinites banned(even tho i second DK/Main Wario), and i dont think they are UBER CHEAP as in IDC, im just trying to prove that DDD infinite's shuts down any of the infinitables more than any other move others can do to them =/.

But as the game is continuing to evolve more and more characters are having infinates found on them.

Also, doesn't anyone notice that almost all the top tiers don't have an infinate on them(excluding IC). Where almost all the lower tiers characters do.

MK-no-s tier
Snake-no s-tier
Wario-yes-only against yoshi, and caught on his second jump. So highly situational s-tier
Diddy-no s-tier
Falco-no- s tier
Marth-no a-tier
IC-no a-tier
olimar-no a-tier
pikachu-no-a tier
G&W-no- a-tier

oppose to lower characters

Ganon-yes -ftier
Link-none that im aware of f tier
Samus-yes f-tier
Mario-yes -e-tier
Luigi-yes - c-tier
Ness-yes -e-tier
lucas- yes -e-tier
Bowser-yes-d-tier

We then complain about how unbalanced the game is, yet we don't ban things that don't even affect the top tier characters, so they won't drop in thier postitions. yet we continue to make sure the lower tier characters remain low and unviable by keeping infinates. We completly limit them from ever entering the metagame. Look at DK when D3 infinate is banned he is a completly viable character, yet with it, pick D3 and you win. Who's to say Luigi can't be a viable char, who's to say Ness or Lucas won't turn out better and be solid Mid -tier characters. Or mario,or bowser. Or sam..........nvm. If we keep infinates there is no way of ever telling.

Uh, we're not going to nerf the abilities of characters just so that bad characters can be viable. I'll once again resort to the example of Marth's Fair. Most of the characters you listed have a very bad match-up versus Marth. However, if you say "Okay Marth, this match-up is unfair, so we're banning your Fair in this match-up, and you cannot use Fair" you'll find that the game becomes more balanced, but far dumber. Clearly, you can see that banning a tactic to make a lesser character more viable, when the opponent could simply choose to use a different character in the first place, is foolish. Many low tier characters don't have answers to dominating moves like Marth's Fair, similar to the way they don't have answers to D3's grab. I do agree about the non-interactive clause, but the end result is the same. Banning moves to make bad characters viable is a dumb idea, and furthermore, doesn't even work.

The ONLY infinite I'd even consider banning is ICs, and I don't believe they need to be banned. At least not yet. Okay so TWO PLAYERS in the whole world have mastered a character at a high enough proficiency to win. To me, it sounds like they developed their character's metagame, and deserve a pat on the back. Clearly, MK and Snake are still winning far more tourneys. Like I said, MK would have to be banned before ICs chaingrab, and I don't think either should be.

Oh and SHIEK AND PIKACHU DO NOT HAVE INFINITE COMBOS. THEY ARE COMBO LOOPS WITH VERY DEFINITE CEILINGS. HOWEVER, THESE ARE GENERALLY 0 -DEATH COMBOS, BUT OTHER CHARACTERS HAVE THOSE TOO. FOR EXAMPLE, MARTH CAN FTHROW - FTHROW - DAIR - SIDEB FALCO, AND FALCO CANNOT RECOVER.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, let's allow walk off stages that would over centralize the game. It would turn into "if you can't CG your opponent to their death from a walk off all 3 stocks with 1 grab then you lose" and I know for ****ed sure I'd play D3 every single counterpick by opponent had so if they picked a walk off, the game would be "whoever gets 3 grabs wins first"

Or you could be what... one of the 10 characters he can't CG? What if you don't play those 10? Do you basically auto-lose because of a stage?

Also banning a stage is far easier then banning the tactic.

This brings me to an interesting point in this topic. It's not just DDD infinites, it's all infinites. Can we include wall infinites?
All stages that have a permanent wall are currently banned, IIRC. Now, walk-off is pretty clear; but wall infinites can be held in check very easily.
I just realized that so few stages have permanent walls that this is a non-issue. >.<

Because it won't make D3 noticably less viable, and even if they're not really viable they will become less useless. DK at least is right on the edge of viability with the infinite banned (He doesn't have an 80:20 counterpick against him and does half decently against MK and Snake) There's just no significant drawback to the competitive game to banning it, and there is a quantifiable benefit.

He does quite well against snake (2nd worst matchup, I think). And pretty much this. You lose nothing and get the usability of some chars back.

Don't get grabbed.

Har de har har har.

The thing is about Dedede, is even if you took the CG out of the picture. Hes still a really great character.

While i do believe Dedede's CG is part of what makes him, who he is in brawl. I also feel that Dedede has alot more to offer the player than just the CG. When you think of the tier list abit, alot of the characters you see that are top tier have alot of very unique and very good tools for not only punishing quickly, but also tools to deal with a vast majority of the cast. That is generally the reason why top tier material is where it is.

/agree

But as the game is continuing to evolve more and more characters are having infinates found on them.

Also, doesn't anyone notice that almost all the top tiers don't have an infinate on them(excluding IC). Where almost all the lower tiers characters do.

MK-no-s tier
Snake-no s-tier
Wario-yes-only against yoshi, and caught on his second jump. So highly situational s-tier
Diddy-no s-tier
Falco-no- s tier
Marth-no a-tier
IC-no a-tier
olimar-no a-tier
pikachu-no-a tier
G&W-no- a-tier

oppose to lower characters

Ganon-yes -ftier
Link-none that im aware of f tier
Samus-yes f-tier
Mario-yes -e-tier
Luigi-yes - c-tier
Ness-yes -e-tier
lucas- yes -e-tier
Bowser-yes-d-tier

We then complain about how unbalanced the game is, yet we don't ban things that don't even affect the top tier characters, so they won't drop in thier postitions. yet we continue to make sure the lower tier characters remain low and unviable by keeping infinates. We completly limit them from ever entering the metagame. Look at DK when D3 infinate is banned he is a completly viable character, yet with it, pick D3 and you win. Who's to say Luigi can't be a viable char, who's to say Ness or Lucas won't turn out better and be solid Mid -tier characters. Or mario,or bowser. Or sam..........nvm. If we keep infinates there is no way of ever telling.

I wonder. If all of a sudden it was found that DDD, Snake, Diddy Kong, or any other top tier char who could reliably pull off a throw on MK had an infinite standing chaingrab on him that relied on grab->dthrow->regrab or grab->release->regrab and didn't require frame perfect timing, would there be calls for blood? Or on Snake. Or on Diddy. Or on Wario (yes, I know they exist on wario, but not by top tiers or even valid chars).

Think of it this way. If, let's say, Character A has an infinite on B, and C has an infinite on D, then A and C become higher tiered. Not banworthy, but true. If, instead, A infinites B, and C infinites B, B becomes very low tiered, and A and C are semi-high. Similarly, if A infinites B and C, then A is certainly high tier. If the game only has the four characters, A is only countered by D, since D is non-infinitable. Thus match variations are shot to hell, having A and D being the only popular characters.

Point is, since infinites DO affect tiers and balance, one must consider HOW exactly they affect it. Infinites aren't nearly as prevalent as the example, but you get the point. Infinites have the ability to all-but-eliminate characters from the metagame. If you could counterpick by picking an infinite-bearing character, then the infinite-recieving character loses popularity, which stagnates their development.

God **** it THIS! Bowser boards is ****ing dead, even after the Grab release CG discovery. FFS, this is the argument I'm trying to push.

I'm sorry, but you can't simply ban infinites.....


please explain to me how you will go about banning an infinite in a tournament setting?


Infinite Example 1: Single attack

How many cycles can a person perform?
What if a person leaves enough time to get out between waves of this single attack?
What if a person must use this attack necessarily (to recover, for example) and it happens to hit the person?
What if a person performs it accidently?

Infinite Example 2: Combo attack 1,2,3,4,5

Let's assume that 1,2,3,4,5 is a combo. Move 5 resets to move 1.

Is 1 banned?
Is 1,2 banned?
Is 1,2,3 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4 banned?
Is 1,2,3,4,5 banned?
Is 2 banned?
Is 2, 3 banned?

and so on...



tl;dr: Give me your clear, concise ruling on how infinites will be banned in a tournament setting.

DDD infinite chaingrab: dthrow can only be chained into a regrab with a dashgrab or dashing shieldgrab. Other regrabbing will lead to stock loss.

Um. This is all just theorycrafting. I haven't seen any technically viable infinites that are used much outside of very matchup-specific ones (ZSS on ROB and Dedede on DK) and Ice Climbers- and ICs infinites perfectly compliment the character, they are low tier without and low high/high mid with.

The Pikachu infinite? People don't know how to SDI. The Sheik infinite? Escapable. The Peach infinite on Wario? Too technical to reliably do and easily escapable on any stage but FD and even escapable on FD with really good SDI and patience.


Most of the "infinites" found don't really matter that much, except ICs and DK/Dedede.


Let's not even get in to the problem of actually enforcing it. Banning Dedede's infinite means banning grab > grab. Is grab > running grab legal? how about grab > walking grab? Making those kinds of distinctions brings you to touchy territory.

See above. It's really simple, and the only person that DDD can't running CG who he can infinite or step CG is luigi.

 

[swordgard]

We don't ban D3's infinite on the warrant of making 5 characters slightly more viable.

This is because:

We would have to be fair to any tactic that affects a minority to be banned.

This includes but is not limited to:

Grab releasing Ness/Lucas should be banned to make them more viable.
Grab releasing MK/Sheik/Ganon/Wolf/Falco/Squirtle/Bowser (Snake can do this to them and a few others) should be banned to make them more viable. (Everyone but MK/Falco in that list needs it according to your top 8-10 standard)
Any chaingrab that affects a minority group (there are a few, not many) should be banned to make the affected characters more viable.
Planking needs to be banned because some people cannot deal with it - and we need to make them more viable.
Footstool Infinites (more specfically against ROB) need to be banned to make ROB more viable.

Actually, planking is banned at most top tourneys now (ECRC and big WC tourneys). Your point stands about the rest, its the fact that you underestimate how many characters MK makes unviable with good planking(its actually somewhere along 3/4 of the cast) because of how it creates slippery slope issues thus totally unbalancing the game play. Even characters with good recovery can easily get gimped by it or ledge spiked.

 

[xDD-Master]

Similarly, if A infinites B and C, then A is certainly high tier. If the game only has the four characters, A is only countered by D, since D is non-infinitable. Thus match variations are shot to hell, having A and D being the only popular characters.

And what if B and C counters D ? There would still be people who would use them as a 2nd. This is what I think still a good deal.

DK is pretty much even (around 45 : 55) against MK & Snake so he can still be used in a tournament as a Counterpick. Not as a main yes, but he still can be usefull in a tourney, for example if you main Marth who looses around 40 : 60 to MK & Snake, then you can choose DK to make it a better MU for you

Some characters looses to MK 70 : 30 or worse and they are not complaining about banning Nado or any other of MKs Move, since this is the match-up.

ICs one are for now the only universal Infinites, but as they are hard to do and hard to set-up there are no needs for a ban.

 

[Zeruel21]

I think the point a lot of people are missing here is that there are not currently any game-breaking infinites in existance (although some would say D3's CG is). However, the potential that one would emerge is the concern.

I personally think that an IC is totally OK, especially if it is highly conditional or difficult to perform, because it rewards skill and the ability to seize opportunities. What I am afraid of is an infinite that is effortless to perform, will break a large amount of otherwise valid characters, will be too easy to use or set up, or would allow wins by stalling.

Pointing to my earlier hypothetical example, if a non-viable character has a breaking combo on a viable character, but that's the only advantage that they have, they won't use the IC to kill. They'll just keep it going until the match times out.

This problem would be even worse if it is a viable character getting an IC on other viable characters. If the D3 mains found a way to CG all of the top tier characters, that CG is destabilizing to the competitive scene because it gives D3 a serious advantage that may be impossible to overcome. Thus, competitive play would center around either maining D3 or using him as a universal CP. By banning that infinite, balance to gameplay would be restored.

This is what I think we should try to think: The issue does not exist now, but we need to be ready to do something about it if it does arise.

 

[Overclassed]

You obviously have not partaken in the various threads about banning said infinite among other things.

Just because no one seems to have to ability to string together a useful, meaningful dialog on this wretched site doesn't mean the way you decide to hold 'discussions' is acceptable.

"That's the way we are" is never a reason for anything. It's just an excuse.

No johns :/

Multiqoute

I think you took what I said out of context D:

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Could be, but it really isn't a valid or viable option... If it was a joke, it's an old one.

 

[SuSa]

And what if B and C counters D ? There would still be people who would use them as a 2nd. This is what I think still a good deal.

DK is pretty much even (around 45 : 55) against MK & Snake so he can still be used in a tournament as a Counterpick. Not as a main yes, but he still can be usefull in a tourney, for example if you main Marth who looses around 40 : 60 to MK & Snake, then you can choose DK to make it a better MU for you

Some characters looses to MK 70 : 30 or worse and they are not complaining about banning Nado or any other of MKs Move, since this is the match-up.

ICs one are for now the only universal Infinites, but as they are hard to do and hard to set-up there are no needs for a ban.

I have a problem with that matchup, and I'm sure many others would as well.

Matchup is easily 50:50, with an arguable 5% either way.

Just because no one seems to have to ability to string together a useful, meaningful dialog on this wretched site doesn't mean the way you decide to hold 'discussions' is acceptable.

"That's the way we are" is never a reason for anything. It's just an excuse.

No johns :/

You obviously didn't understand why I said that.

We had over 1,000 pages of discussions and debates - mostly repetitive from the Pro-Ban side so if you think you, as a single person - bringing up more of the exact same points are doing any better. You are mistaken.

So far the only good point anyone has brought up (and I think it was brought up in the old ban threads as well) was situational difficulty.

 

[salaboB]

So far the only good point anyone has brought up (and I think it was brought up in the old ban threads as well) was situational difficulty.

I'm confused.

Situational difficulty is not a pro-ban or an anti-ban point. It's simply a fact of the game -- it's why Bowser's grab release cg against MK doesn't mean MK loses the match every time.

People don't usually identify it properly, but that doesn't mean it's anything more than a basic game function, like if someone brought up being able to hang on the edge as a reason why you don't die if you're recovering from below the stage.

 

[SuSa]

I'm confused.

Situational difficulty is not a pro-ban or an anti-ban point. It's simply a fact of the game -- it's why Bowser's grab release cg against MK doesn't mean MK loses the match every time.

People don't usually identify it properly, but that doesn't mean it's anything more than a basic game function, like if someone brought up being able to hang on the edge as a reason why you don't die if you're recovering from below the stage.

Why Ban D3's infinite:
It is always there and there is nothing you can do about it

Why Ban Ic's infinite?:
You can always get rid of Nana, and there goes the infinite.

This is what I was speaking about the situational difficulty. One is always there, while one can be removed (therefore much more situational)

 

[Roager]

And what if B and C counters D ? There would still be people who would use them as a 2nd. This is what I think still a good deal.

I'm not saying all infinites are banworthy, or that all infinites kill metagames, but I am saying that they have the potential to seriously disrupt character developments. I'm not going to argue specific matchups, because I don't know them well enough, I was just trying to point out that there is a possible danger, and saying "all infinites should be allowed always" is a pretty stupid stance to take.

But yeah, it's a valid point to say that B and C may not entirely fall out of existence, especially if they counter D. Which kinda relates to what I was saying. Infinites can't be umbrella-banned. As I said earlier, taking the "infinites allowed no matter what" is stupid, but so is "infinites banned no matter what"

The Smash community needs to look into what specific effects infinites have, and use that as the basis for ban "worthiness".

 

[Grunt]

I think the point a lot of people are missing here is that there are not currently any game-breaking infinites in existance (although some would say D3's CG is). However, the potential that one would emerge is the concern.

no, you're missing the most important point of all.
nobody cares if one might pop up later that destroys the metagame, but there isn't right now, so there is no reason to ban the ones that don't destory the metagame.

 

[Xebenkeck]

Uh, we're not going to nerf the abilities of characters just so that bad characters can be viable. I'll once again resort to the example of Marth's Fair. Most of the characters you listed have a very bad match-up versus Marth. However, if you say "Okay Marth, this match-up is unfair, so we're banning your Fair in this match-up, and you cannot use Fair" you'll find that the game becomes more balanced, but far dumber. Clearly, you can see that banning a tactic to make a lesser character more viable, when the opponent could simply choose to use a different character in the first place, is foolish. Many low tier characters don't have answers to dominating moves like Marth's Fair, similar to the way they don't have answers to D3's grab. I do agree about the non-interactive clause, but the end result is the same. Banning moves to make bad characters viable is a dumb idea, and furthermore, doesn't even work.

The ONLY infinite I'd even consider banning is ICs, and I don't believe they need to be banned. At least not yet. Okay so TWO PLAYERS in the whole world have mastered a character at a high enough proficiency to win. To me, it sounds like they developed their character's metagame, and deserve a pat on the back. Clearly, MK and Snake are still winning far more tourneys. Like I said, MK would have to be banned before ICs chaingrab, and I don't think either should be.
.

Indeed moves like marth f-air shut down characters, but by no means is it unpunishable. There is a major difference between a good move and a 0-death infinate. Example: i play ness obviously, and if i run into a marth who is f-airing alot. i will run towards him, stop and when he fairs, throw out pk fire to hit him. Then that leads into whatever for me. You can punish a move like marth's fair, it's hard but doable. The infinate however is different, because once marth grabs me its death. No way to punish it and no way to retaliate.

"Banning moves to make bad characters viable is a dumb idea, and furthermore, doesn't even work."

That is an opinion, which your entitled to, but your saying you want less viable characters? Clearly characters like Ganon and Samus will not become better without the infinate, they have way to many other problems to be good. But its characters that sit on the fence of viability like DK, Luigi, Ness, Lucas, Bowser, that will benefit greatly without the infinates. I'll use DK as an example. In the very first tier list we made we put him as 10th, for very good reasons. He has great match-ups(besides D3) hes one of the best spacers in the game, hes ubsurdly powerful, fast, and has invincibility frames on B and ^B. Over the next two list he dropped from 10th-18th. Seemingly for no reason other than he is vastly underplayed, which partly can be attributed to the infinate. Without the infinate IMO DK is about the 10th best character in the game. Its just, with the infinate, at the highest level of play DK is a completly unviable character. The same could be true with the others. Luigi could be a high tier char, Ness and lucas could be solid mid-tier characters, same with mario and bowser. The fact of the matter is infinates make them completly unviable at the highest levels, which shouldn't be the case we should strive for the most diversity as we can. Which like i mentioned earlier it doesn't even effect the top tiers anyways, it just lets these characters enter the Metagame.

The IC infinates i agree with you and alot of other people should not be banned because you can kill the *****. Every character has a method of seperating them. And like you said it shouldn't even be considered until they overtake MK in tournament wins.

 

[gm jack]

Why ban an infinte? How is it any different to any other move that happens to destroy certain characters (e.g. Fox and Sheik's Ftilt lock to Usmash). If they were more universal and destroying the metagame, then maybe there would be a case. But if you enter a fight against a character who can infinite you, well, bad luck. Some moves can be the deciding factor in matches. Why should it be banned because it happens to be an infinite?

Of course some character will be made unviable because of this, but others are made more viable because of it. For example, DDD vs Luigi. Without the infinite, it is pretty even. With it, DDD gets an advantage. IC are a bit different due to their difficulty of chain grabbing, but without their infinites, they would be completely unviable.

 

[Xebenkeck]

Hence why you can't ban the IC infinattes because it throws thier metagame, up to this point, right out the window.

 

[9Kplus1]

I think the point a lot of people are missing here is that there are not currently any game-breaking infinites in existance (although some would say D3's CG is). However, the potential that one would emerge is the concern.

The problem that I have with this statement is that even if more and more infinates are found, there's a low chance that they'll be as effortless as D3's infinate nor will they be versitle to "ruin" the metagames of an array of characters like IC's. I doubt any character of the SSBB metagame will discover an infinate that's going to be both broken and effortless if they haven't discovered it, already. Don't exagurate what might happen with infinates, it just results in mindless arguments, going back and forth, until it just dies away.

I personally think that an IC is totally OK, especially if it is highly conditional or difficult to perform, because it rewards skill and the ability to seize opportunities. What I am afraid of is an infinite that is effortless to perform, will break a large amount of otherwise valid characters, will be too easy to use or set up...

So, let's ban Marth's grab release infinate because Ness and Lucas have a long grab release animation. What you're telling me is that a single infinate on one character ruins that said character's metagame? If that's the case, then why isn't MK in the A tier when Marth can GR infinate him (bad example, but you get my point)?

or would allow wins by stalling

Pointing to my earlier hypothetical example, if a non-viable character has a breaking combo on a viable character, but that's the only advantage that they have, they won't use the IC to kill. They'll just keep it going until the match times out.

Well, I could say that not every player plays gay and continues the infinate due to their match up with a character; however, I'll just say that stalling is an issue that spreads out to characters who don't even use infinates to stall. Falco can stall with laser spam, Pit can MK can stall with planking and Fox can just side B and run away to stall, why don't we just ban every factor that contributes to stalling.

This problem would be even worse if it is a viable character getting an IC on other viable characters. If the D3 mains found a way to CG all of the top tier characters, that CG is destabilizing to the competitive scene because it gives D3 a serious advantage that may be impossible to overcome. Thus, competitive play would center around either maining D3 or using him as a universal CP. By banning that infinite, balance to gameplay would be restored.

I could've sworn that D3 had a infinate on 5 chars... or am I missing something?

Every character main finds ways to make their main become more deadly against top tier characters (does the tier even matter?), from IC's infinate to Ganon's "chainchoking". What makes D3 so different? I mean, unless there's no way around it; every single character that D3 can CG and infinate on can't outrange his attacks or get a KO on him. As I've said before, any new infinates have a low chance of being both effortless and effective. Even if a new infinate were to arise, how would that ruin the metagames of the characters the infinate can be used on? There are 35 characters, I doubt one would really make much of a difference.

This is what I think we should try to think: The issue does not exist now, but we need to be ready to do something about it if it does arise.

...By banning something that may not even be a large threat in the future?

 

[hotgarbage]

You obviously don't know me......... and read my user title. Now read yours. Get my drift.

lol

10lols

 

[Xebenkeck]

the infinate can be used on? There are 35 characters, I doubt one would really make much of a difference.

If marth was taken out of the metagame by an infinate the metagame would change significantly. Same with D3 & G&W. DK seems to be taken out of the game by one character it would seem.

 

[Twin Dreams]

you can't ban chain grabbing.


As in the case of a single repeating attack infinite.....


What if I leave enough time in between my attacks for you to escape?

1 frame? 2 frames?

You're going to put a time limit between how often I can use an attack?

That is completely unenforceable!


Secondly...

Your argument was that you can't chain combo 1,2,3,4,5 by saying that it's banned to use 5,1.

How do you ENFORCE that? Once they land attack 5 they can't use attack 1 without inserting a move in between? Going back to frame calculating? Allowing 1 frame of escapability? 2?

Right. I asked you to come up with a way to ENFORCE a ban. First off, the judge needs to be there to see it. Secondly, the judge needs to be 100% certain that the rule was broken. So, unless you plan on having cybornetic judges that can see gameplay frame by frame or giving them stop watches to make sure that the specified time limit was reached before continuing the attack, which is of course ridiculous, I don't see how you can go about banning this.

Example: Spawn camping in Halo. ( I believe it was Halo, anyway)

Spawn camping was a problem in Halo, so they put a time limit on how long you could go without moving. If you stood in place for one minute you would be disconnected. So, the best strategy went from spawn camping forever to spawn camping for 59 seconds then moving 1 pixel in a direction. Was this "ban" really effective? Players will just do the best possible thing within the confines of however you go about banning it, anyway!

If you put a time limit on an attack or combo in order to allow for escapability, then you must have a reasonable way to enforce that time limit. So answers like "allow the player to regain control of his character", "X amount of time after the execution of an attack", and "X frames" are not viable at all as options.

 

[Nefarious B]

Pikachu's seemingly zero to death is more intriguing though. It works on every character except jiggs and Ice Climbers (because nana will interupt it). It's not too hard to setup, though certain camping measures will make it unviable (MK dair camping for example).

I think "watch and see" is the best we can do with Pika's, but that is different from every other infinite we've seen up to this point, because it affects the entire cast and is easy, and unlike the climbers, pika doesn't get divided and conquered.

 

[Throwback]

Pikachu's seemingly zero to death is more intriguing though. It works on every character except jiggs and Ice Climbers (because nana will interupt it). It's not too hard to setup, though certain camping measures will make it unviable (MK dair camping for example).

I think "watch and see" is the best we can do with Pika's, but that is different from every other infinite we've seen up to this point, because it affects the entire cast and is easy, and unlike the climbers, pika doesn't get divided and conquered.

aaaaaaaaaaand

/thread