Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[Inferno_blaze]

Only you can. At any time when moving forward on the ground and quite possibly even when not moving forward, you can trip. You can trip while doing over B (trust me, I main Zelda). Now I'm pretty sure than when I hit to the side and then B, I'm not initiating a run and then side B:ing.

As far as I am aware, the game registers you hammering sideways as an attempt at movement even if you're using a B move which is why you trip, I have never seen anyone trip on a walk. And vs bowser you'll get him up to a high enough % before you move any real distance at all so that you can just throw him off that you might as well not be moving.


Oh and about the smash balls, it's because they spawn randomly (which is really only part of the reason).

 

[RDK]

Disclaimer: I've Only Read the First Two Pages.


The way I see it is that an "infinite" should be just considered as an instant kill skill. Infinites should be treated simply like that, if an infinite is possible then an instant kill is possible.

It should be banned for the same reason that Smash Balls are banned!

Sure, DDD's infinite only works on 5 people, so he can only do it some of the time. But I can only use the Final Smash some of the time - but when I DO get it as Marth, or someone else, they're DEAD.

Just like banning stages with hazards and items, infinites and instant kill attacks remove a huge amount of skill and strategy from the game, and both should be dealt with in the same manner.

As soon as DDD fills the top 5 slots at every single tourney, I'm sure the standing infinite will be banned. Until then, it's not that much of a threat. It can't even be used on the full roster of characters.

There's a remedy for infinites that you people just aren't understanding--DON'T GET GRABBED. It's not that hard. Good spacing can prevent the initiation of infinites.

That, or play Snake / MK.

 

[UberBen56]

Ya Patsie, when do we end up distinguishing an infinite (which traditionally is an inescapable set of maneuvers strung together) with a combo (which traditionally is an inescapable set of maneuvers strung together)?

It seems to me that Brawl "infinites" are just like traditional combos. Are you trying to say we should ban combos? I don't see any other way to allow a "ban on infinites".

Combos are escapable. This is where the difference between "hard" and "impossible" comes in.

 

[VagrantLest]

You're a moron, and clearly didn't read my post.

I could be the best friggen Mario player in the world, but some scrub who knows how to press Z over and over again can beat my character if I get grabbed once. That make it easier for you to understand?

Random scrubs do not win with Ice Climber grabs. Random scrubs can win with D3 grabs.

A random scrub won't be able to land enough grabs vs the best Mario player in the world. Not to mention I don't give a **** about the best Mario, top players don't restrict themselves with single characters so don't play Mario if you aren't up for avoiding the grab/ beating them so badly they can't grab.

You are an Idiot because you think it matters that someone can't play Mario without a lot of work learning the dedede match-up.

Combos are escapable. This is where the difference between "hard" and "impossible" comes in.

The point of a COMBO is that it's inescapable. It's guaranteed damage after the initial hit.

 

[Inui]

You are an Idiot because you think it matters that someone can't play Mario without a lot of work learning the dedede match-up.

lol

You are an idiot because you think Mario has the tools to somehow outspace Dedede and never get grabbed. No amount of "work" can really change that.

I agree that top players don't restrict themselves with one character, though. I use Dedede and Pit for some of Marth's bad matches, for instance.

 

[VagrantLest]

lol

You are an idiot because you think Mario has the tools to somehow outspace Dedede and never get grabbed. No amount of "work" can really change that.

I agree that top players don't restrict themselves with one character, though. I use Dedede and Pit for some of Marth's bad matches, for instance.

What I said is that Mario can avoid the grabs from any random scrub/ anyone who isn't putting effort into Dedede. All i've said in this thread is that bad match-ups exist, deal with it.

You really think the best Mario player would lose to random scrub Dedede#197892? Thats what I was commenting on.

Not to mention if Zangeif players can beat GOOD guile players when he has no chance on paper almost anything is possible with enough effort. You may be a good player but you aren't a computer and you are definetly selling other players short if you assume there are NO tactics of getting in.

And even if there is NO way of outsmarting random Dedede player, the entire message of my post is thatyou don't have to pick bad characters like Mario, Bowser etc.

 

[Yuna]

Zangief vs. Guile is an unwinnable matchup if the Guile-player knows what he's doing. Because the matchup is just that bad.

 

[iMeeHow]

Ice climber infinite grab actually takes time to master so, if they took time to master these infinites why would u ban them

 

[brentlouis]

, the entire message of my post is thatyou don't have to pick bad characters like Mario, Bowser etc.

since when were mario and bowser bad, they are not "good" because good people do not use them besides gimpyfish

 

[Amarkov]

Ice climber infinite grab actually takes time to master so, if they took time to master these infinites why would u ban them

If something actually breaks the game's balance, it doesn't matter if it's hard to perform. In fact, that arguably makes it worse, as the few people who mastered the game-breaking technique would then win all tournaments.

Of course, there's no evidence yet that it's actually gamebreaking. But if it turns out to be, "it's hard to perform" isn't a good reason not to ban it.

 

[Zankoku]

since when were mario and bowser bad, they are not "good" because good people do not use them besides gimpyfish

Gimpyfish doesn't play Brawl.

 

[brentlouis]

Gimpyfish doesn't play Brawl.

i am pretty much talking about smash in general, and besides gimpyfish has played brawl

 

[Zankoku]

Gimpyfish doesn't play Melee, either.

 

[kamekasu]

since when were mario and bowser bad, they are not "good" because good people do not use them besides gimpyfish

Arash and KevinM?

Eggz and Brown Mario?

 

[VagrantLest]

Arash and KevinM?

Eggz and Brown Mario?

If those players would have put that effort into the better characters they would be better. Mario is bad, Brown Mario is an awesome player. Really people can dance around it all they want, but unless the character is apart of the top 2 tiers or has even-good match-ups against a significant portion of those characters(and yet somehow didn't make it to those tiers) the character is bad. If you do well with a bad character its because you were just that much better then your opponents(and would probably do better with a better char.)

 

[Zankoku]

I hate that argument. Yes, MAYBE we might do better if we used Snake or Meta Knight instead of Yoshi or Captain Falcon. Then again, maybe not. I'm playing the characters I do best with, not the characters that are supposed to be the best, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.

 

[VagrantLest]

Well ya sure, it's true that some characters that are lower on the tier list might have play styles that are better for some players to utilize. Also to be honest a lot of players can do well with less played chars simply because of surprise/ inexperience factor, but that really doesn't change how overall good that character is. After all of the surprise factor is gone and there isn't some powerful meta game (like the field is saturated with D3 so Snake can beast a tournament because its so rough for DK players) the best characters will be just better choices then a lot of others. No matter what anyone says though tiers will exist as a part of nature in a game, so if someone puts a lot of effort in a worse character and does well its reasonable to presume that they would do better with a better character.

I'm just saying that in a competitive environment you don't ban something because it dominates a select few characters especially characters that are already ill-equipped to get the job done.

 

[RDK]

Bowser is a better char than you guys give him credit for. Kish Squared just won a midwest tournament in Indiana with Bowser. He beat Overswarm's ROB, along with a lot of other good players who use good characters *COUGH* MK *COUGH*.

 

[brentlouis]

Bowser is a better char than you guys give him credit for. Kish Squared just won a midwest tournament in Indiana with Bowser. He beat Overswarm's ROB, along with a lot of other good players who use good characters *COUGH* MK *COUGH*.

Thank you rdk, it is great to see bowser winning a tournament.

 

[Zankoku]

He didn't win the tournament, though he did take an impressive 2nd place finish.

 

[RDK]

He didn't win the tournament, though he did take an impressive 2nd place finish.

My bad; I forgot Overswarm beat him. Although in the actual matches, he did play very well against OS; especially for using Bowser.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No one is prepared for the big stinky turtle.

Cookie for reference.

 

[ToastMAN]

**** that ****, if snake had an infinite you would ban that ****...but he doesnt so bann that ****!

 

[Gelsamel]

"Don't get grabed/infinited"
"Don't get hit by hazards"
"Don't let them get items"
"Don't let them get the smash ball"
"Dodge their final smash"

All these arguments are the same, and yet for some reason the only one we don't respond to in the same way is the first? The rest are banned for logical reasons which can be logically extended to infinites as well.

Unless you can give a logical reason why "Don't get grabed" is a valid reason to allow infintes whereas "don't get hit by hazards" ISN'T a valid reason for arguing for hazardous maps?

 

[Blackbelt]

"Don't get grabed/infinited"
"Don't get hit by hazards"
"Don't let them get items"
"Don't let them get the smash ball"
"Dodge their final smash"

All these arguments are the same, and yet for some reason the only one we don't respond to in the same way is the first? The rest are banned for logical reasons which can be logically extended to infinites as well.

Unless you can give a logical reason why "Don't get grabed" is a valid reason to allow infintes whereas "don't get hit by hazards" ISN'T a valid reason for arguing for hazardous maps?

Because all of the other things are controlled to the game by a certain extent.

the decision to useinfinites are in the hands of the players.

 

[VagrantLest]

"Don't get grabed/infinited"
"Don't get hit by hazards"
"Don't let them get items"
"Don't let them get the smash ball"
"Dodge their final smash"

All these arguments are the same, and yet for some reason the only one we don't respond to in the same way is the first? The rest are banned for logical reasons which can be logically extended to infinites as well.

Unless you can give a logical reason why "Don't get grabed" is a valid reason to allow infintes whereas "don't get hit by hazards" ISN'T a valid reason for arguing for hazardous maps?

Because they aren't even close to the same thing.

 

[Tyser]

Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis Penis

 

[Gelsamel]

Because all of the other things are controlled to the game by a certain extent.

the decision to useinfinites are in the hands of the players.

So? It doesn't change the response.

It's not as if Infinites are uncontrollable.

Set some arbitrary limit and there you go, the rule is made. And any arbitrary limit that is set should be obvious so it can be enforced. Voila, you're done. It's easy and any particular limit can be set so you do not destroy the viability of chain grabbing etc. Just because you can't turn it off doesn't mean you should ignore it, just because you can't turn it off shouldn't mean the response changes from "Banned" to "Geez, just deal with it".

 

[Best101]

"Don't get grabed/infinited"
1."Don't get hit by hazards"
2."Don't let them get items"
3."Don't let them get the smash ball"
4."Dodge their final smash"

Those are not the same as don't get, grabbed/infinite
1.Stages that attack you are random (Spear Pillar for example)
2. Items spawn randomly. If a heart randomly spawns right in front of your opponent away from you, you can't really do anything about it. No strategy from either side had anything to do with it :/
3.Smash Balls are random and EXTREMELY unbalanced. Plus if you're losing it's easier to break open the ball.
4. Let me see you dodge a Landmaster/Super Sonic 30-45 seconds without dying. He has invincibility so you can't attack your opponent. If the person has half a brain and is not 5 years old then he/she can easily take a stock.

Not getting grabbed on the other hand is a bit more reasonable. Both players are trying to find a way get at one another. There are strategies against grabbing. Nothing random, just the two players duking it out. (I'm not going over those strategies because it's been said over 9000 times in thread already)

 

[Dark Sonic]

Those are not the same as don't get, grabbed/infinite
1.Stages that attack you are random (Spear Pillar for example)
2. Items spawn randomly. If a heart randomly spawns right in front of your opponent away from you, you can't really do anything about it. No strategy from either side had anything to do with it :/
3.Smash Balls are random and EXTREMELY unbalanced. Plus if you're losing it's easier to break open the ball.
4. Let me see you dodge a Landmaster/Super Sonic 30-45 seconds without dying. He has invincibility so you can't attack your opponent. If the person has half a brain and is not 5 years old then he/she can easily take a stock.

Not getting grabbed on the other hand is a bit more reasonable. Both players are trying to find a way get at one another. There are strategies against grabbing. Nothing random, just the two players duking it out. (I'm not going over those strategies because it's been said over 9000 times in thread already)

Quoted for emphasis.

Also note that it's easier to knock the ball out of the winning player. Favortism much?

 

[GimmeAnFSharp]

People should just not have "mains". Just get good with every **** character and be able to counterpick better than your opponent. It's as simple as that.

 

[Dantarion]

First of all, the difference between an infinite and a combo is that an infinite is an infinite combo. As in it can be continued forever/as long as nessesary. I feel like they should be allowed, because they aren't even affecting tourney results. No one is seeing players winning tourneys by infiniting their way to the top.

The characters we consider best don't have infinites.

And people will always pick mains, I mean, everyone has favorite characters to play with after a while of playing that suit your battle style.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Diddy Kong's Banana Infinite

Note: may be character specific, needs a bit more testing. All but 100% confirmed to be inescapable against some characters with the right timing. Please read video description.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

^ Awesome vid, 5/5.

 

[RDK]

The inherent problem with banning infinites is that they are, in the basest sense, an inescapable combo. Point being, where do you draw the line? How close to an infinite does a string of combos have to be to warrant a ban? A lot of combos that aren't true infinites can become so if you catch your opponent up against a wall, or if you just use good prediction.

At what point does a string of combos become bannable? Once you start banning things like the IC infinite, people still won't be happy.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Yea, that, and if we ban the easy infinite, than the harder ones like Diddy's would also have to be banned, and Diddy's is cool as hell.

 

[RDK]

Yea, that, and if we ban the easy infinite, than the harder ones like Diddy's would also have to be banned, and Diddy's is cool as hell.

I've discovered that, when played well, Diddy is ridiculously good against Snake and MK. Fight broken with broken, I guess.

And his bananas are SOOOOO broken.

 

[Patsie]

You've got a quick delete post finger, Alpha.

I saw what you did there.

 

[Yuna]

The characters we consider best don't have infinites.

Little known fact:
Snake has an infinite on, I believe, everyone. Unless Kirby and Jigglypuff or something fly off differently from his downthrow.

With Snake facing the edge and being quite close to it, he can infinite people with downthrow. And finish it off with a KO:ing U-tilt.

"Don't get grabed/infinited"
"Don't get hit by hazards"
"Don't let them get items"
"Don't let them get the smash ball"
"Dodge their final smash"

All these arguments are the same, and yet for some reason the only one we don't respond to in the same way is the first? The rest are banned for logical reasons which can be logically extended to infinites as well.

Unless you can give a logical reason why "Don't get grabed" is a valid reason to allow infintes whereas "don't get hit by hazards" ISN'T a valid reason for arguing for hazardous maps?

You can dodge every single grab. You cannot dodge/avoid every single hazard, you cannot at any time prevent your opponent from getting the Smash Ball every single time. And not all Final Smashes are dodgable because their hitboxes stay out for way too long. Some Final Smashes can be comboed into so you'd have to dodge every single move your opponent throws out at you in order to not get comboed into them.

Why you cannot dodge all hazards:
* You cannot dodge hazards that stay out for too long, like a whole bunch of Mario Circuit go karts.
* You cannot prevent your opponent from hitting you into the hazards.
* Some hazards are just too fast for the human mind to possibly react in time.

Why you cannot prevent your opponent from getting items every single time:
* Then you'd have to never get hit because a Golden Hammer just might spawn right next to your opponent right after he hits you (and you are, thus, in hitstun/flying off/both and cannot prevent him from getting it).
* You cannot stay right next to your opponent at all times to prevent him from getting items.
* Even if you do, what happens if the item spawns behind him? You cannot get to it before him unless he's Bowser and you're Sonic or whatever.
* You're dying, getting star KO:ed or trying to recover from getting hit off the stage. An Item Appears.

You cannot prevent your opponent from getting Smash Ball every single time:
* See above.

You cannot dodge every single Final Smash:
* You cannot dodge Zamus' FS in the air because its hitbox is huge, it sucks you in and it stays out for a really long time.
* You cannot dodge Peach's Final Smash because it stays out for way too long. The only way to dodge it is to already be on the edge because the camera zooms in on Peach, making it impossible for you to make it there once the FS has started. You cannot jump, 2nd jump and Up B as most characters because they will land before the FS ends.
* Try dodging the Landmasters, just try. The Landmasters themselves are huge hitboxes when in motion.
* You cannot dodge the Final Smash if I D-tilt you as Marth and then immediately Final Smash because you're still in hitstun.

What happens when you dodge a grab:
Your cooldown is less than that of your opponent's depending on how early you dodge the grab. Worse case scenario, the advantage is pretty even, you cannot grab/hit him back but neither can he. A dodged grab is always safe. A dodge Mario Circuit car? Not very safe.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

The inherent problem with banning infinites is that they are, in the basest sense, an inescapable combo. Point being, where do you draw the line? How close to an infinite does a string of combos have to be to warrant a ban? A lot of combos that aren't true infinites can become so if you catch your opponent up against a wall, or if you just use good prediction.

At what point does a string of combos become bannable? Once you start banning things like the IC infinite, people still won't be happy.

QFT^3

10char