Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[pure_awesome]

Don't bother. I'm not debating whether or not something over-centralizes the game with someone who doesn't know what over-centralizing is.

If you're bad at something that is the ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE GAME, then you will lose. There's no way around that.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Don't bother. I'm not debating whether or not something over-centralizes the game with someone who doesn't know what over-centralizing is.

If you're bad at something that is the ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE GAME, then you will lose. There's no way around that.

I find it laughable that you make such a silly notion and then branch off on something that has absolutely nothing to do with overcentralizing at all!
For making such an accusation it is rather ironic.

Overcentralizing has NOTHING to do with being bad at whatever the tactic/character/move may be.

The fact that you believe someone being terrible with items has nothing to do with it.
There are people who suck *** with Auma in SF2. Doesn't change the fact that Akuma overcentralizes gameplay.
There are people who sucked *** with Ravager decks in MTG, didn't change the fact that it overcentralized.

So why do you continuously bring up the fact that ken did badly as if it justifies your argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of overcentralizing.

It is the nature of items, the nature of Akuma, the nature of Ravager decks that causes overcentralizing.
The fact that many people may such *** even when using them does not change this fact.

if you wish to leave feel free to do so. I won't hold it against you.

 

[PK-ow!]

I find it laughable that you make such a silly notion and then branch off on something that has absolutely nothing to do with overcentralizing at all!
For making such an accusation it is rather ironic.

Overcentralizing has NOTHING to do with being bad at whatever the tactic/character/move may be.

No no, his post is entirely relevant, and on that note, your previous post does not at all answer the very devastating objection raised by the person you quote in it.

The fact that you believe someone being terrible with items has nothing to do with it.

This isn't a complete sentence. It's like "Because the sun is eight light-minutes from Earth." You expect something to come after it, with a comma.

There are people who suck *** with Auma in SF2. Doesn't change the fact that Akuma overcentralizes gameplay.
There are people who sucked *** with Ravager decks in MTG, didn't change the fact that it overcentralized.

Do any of those people win tournaments (with notable attendees)?

Either you misunderstood the other guys' posts, or you have failed to see the structure of the argument they're making.

So why do you continuously bring up the fact that ken did badly as if it justifies your argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of overcentralizing.

Oh, wait, you did misunderstand.

He said KEN DID WELL, despite the fact that he sucks with items. Ken doing well (in particular, reaching grand finals of an event), is mutually exclusive with Ken doing badly.

 

[ShadowLink84]

No no, his post is entirely relevant, and on that note, your previous post does not at all answer the very devastating objection raised by the person you quote in it.

then can you clarify what this objection is? it appears to me that he objects purely because of the fact that Ken did poorly with the items.

This isn't a complete sentence. It's like "Because the sun is eight light-minutes from Earth." You expect something to come after it, with a comma.

*shrug*
I hoped people would know that the subject was referring to overcentralizing since I had been speaking of it repeatedly prior.

Do any of those people win tournaments (with notable attendees)?

Why do you ask?
The answer to your question is no. They do not win.

Either you misunderstood the other guys' posts, or you have failed to see the structure of the argument they're making.

Probably the former.

Oh, wait, you did misunderstand.

He said KEN DID WELL, despite the fact that he sucks with items. Ken doing well (in particular, reaching grand finals of an event), is mutually exclusive with Ken doing badly.

mmk.

 

[Pi]

Hey

I put together some ban criteria that are better than yours.

Criteria for banning:

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed.

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)
• Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)
• Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match.

Defensive technique

• Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of time
• Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)

Stages

• Has features which can be taken advantage of to ensure the loss of a stock at any % in the match.
• Reduces matches to a more luck than skill, or to an unreasonable amount of luck:skill ratio
• Has features which can be taken advantage of to 'lock' the opponent - rendering their input (within reason of human ability) ineffective.

Character (Only after a reasonable amount of playtime has passed)

• Has no matches at which said character is at a disadvantage OR has fewer than X amount of neutral match ups
• Has 1 or more moves that guarantee a stock at any % in the match (if TL's down A glitch was able to be reproduced accidentally, effectively, and consistently) WHICH cannot be banned or monitored.
  [Note]Characters should NOT be banned altogether, but at the very most limited to ditto's.

This is more like the type of criteria we should have
Not 'overcentralize the metagame'


Note: I thought this up rather quickly
This is something that more time should be spent on
This criteria is not perfect - nor is yours
Please be sure to provide examples related to smash to refute any of these criteria.
At the very least we can come up with criteria more specific that will be more effective.

Spoiler

[Note]I've been on these boards for nearly 5 years.I have read, I have seen discussions, I have educated myself on the inner workings of melee and brawl.You say I know nothing of competitive smash but it is simply not the case. I know what the tiers are, how they are determined. I knew chain grabs and counters, I knew advance techs I knew the best players in the nation etc. etc. etc.

Don't say I have no knowledge of competitive games, and ESPECIALLY don't use it as an excuse as to why I have no place in this argument.

The SBR opened up this discussion to the community because it isn't reliant on how many tournaments you've attended, or how many games you've played competitively - the floor is open to anyone with an opinion, and anyone who can back it up should be given the same respect as you would expect yourself. Believe it or not I do put thought into my posts and my resonances, I refrain from insulting or attempting to belittle people on the internet because it is to no avail, a truism you have failed to realize. If it makes you feel good to base half of your argument and walls of text on what you have perceived me to be then by all means grab the tissues and the lotion and get to work. But do not expect it to have any effect on my position in this debate or my willingness to post - because to me, you are the ignorant *** hole.

 

[rathy Aro]

Criteria above just should not be the case for almost any of those.

Anyway the ban on items is a bad comparison, because they are banned mainly because of the huge luck factor they add to the game. DDD's Infinite grab doesn't have a luck factor nor does it (by any means) over-centralize the game.

The only reason to ban it is because it seems unfair (and it is) and it seems cheap (and it is). So what? Many things with in brawl are cheap and unfair. That's just a reality of the game and of life. Its not a reason to ban anything. How hard is it to pick up one of the MANY characters that have good/even matchups against DDD? Even with the infinite grab falcon players still have far more reason to complain than DK mains, luigi mains, Bowser mains, etc.

Honestly this topic is stupid. The SBR should just make their decision which is obviously going to be no ban. I mean MK is relatively more broken than this move and they didn't ban him. =/

Criteria for bans:
If it can stall (funny enough this is like the only good argument against DDDs infinite and no one brings it up)
if it over-centralizes
if it introduces a large luck factor
(feel free to add something I missed)

 

[zacharia zako]

Hey

I put together some ban criteria that are better than yours.

Criteria for banning:

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed. NO

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)NO
• Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)YES
• Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match. POSSIBLY

Defensive technique

• Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of timeITS NOT INVINCIBLE BUT THE OPPONENT CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT (YES)
• Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)NO

Stages

• Has features which can be taken advantage of to ensure the loss of a stock at any % in the match.
• Reduces matches to a more luck than skill, or to an unreasonable amount of luck:skill ratio
• Has features which can be taken advantage of to 'lock' the opponent - rendering their input (within reason of human ability) ineffective.

Character (Only after a reasonable amount of playtime has passed)

• Has no matches at which said character is at a disadvantage OR has fewer than X amount of neutral match upsNO
• Has 1 or more moves that guarantee a stock at any % in the match (if TL's down A glitch was able to be reproduced accidentally, effectively, and consistently) WHICH cannot be banned or monitored. POSSIBLY
  [Note]Characters should NOT be banned altogether, but at the very most limited to ditto's.

if u look at all the yes's and no's then we can get a good look on whether D3's CJ should be banned:

if there is 4 no's 2 yes's and 2 possiblie's (it counts more towards a yes than no)
then we can see based off this the yes's and no's balance out. since the move cant actually be taken out of the game there isnt a real way to "ban" the CJ. all tourneys should just state whats legal and not legal, including D3's chaingrab

 

[Pi]

if u look at all the yes's and no's then we can get a good look on whether D3's CJ should be banned:

if there is 4 no's 2 yes's and 2 possiblie's (it counts more towards a yes than no)
then we can see based off this the yes's and no's balance out. since the move cant actually be taken out of the game there isnt a real way to "ban" the CJ. all tourneys should just state whats legal and not legal, including D3's chaingrab

Um...I meant that if a move fits any of the criteria it should be banned.

Also-Not CG; Infinite
And there is a way to ban the infinite 'don't perform it'
It's pretty obvious when you perform it, so there will be no mistakes or accidents

Criteria above just should not be the case for almost any of those.

Why?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wow... why in the great blue hell were items even a part of this debate? This whole thread is really getting overbearing.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Meh it kills time.

 

[RDK]

Yeah, I cancelled my subscription to this thread as soon as I saw items being compared to D3's chaingrab.

 

[pure_awesome]

Wow... why in the great blue hell were items even a part of this debate? This whole thread is really getting overbearing.

Essentially, everyone was saying D3's infinite can't be banned because it doesn't over-centralize the game. I pointed out that we are capable of banning things for reasons other than over-centralizing, like what happened with items. Various individuals then decided that items actually were banned for over-centralizing the game, and the SBR has been lying to us all along about this whole "Random Factor" thing. The jerks!

Hilarity ensued.

So why do you continuously bring up the fact that ken did badly as if it justifies your argument when it has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of overcentralizing.

He said KEN DID WELL, despite the fact that he sucks with items. Ken doing well (in particular, reaching grand finals of an event), is mutually exclusive with Ken doing badly.

then can you clarify what this objection is? it appears to me that he objects purely because of the fact that Ken did poorly with the items.

 

[aeghrur]

Um...I meant that if a move fits any of the criteria it should be banned.

Also-Not CG; Infinite
And there is a way to ban the infinite 'don't perform it'
It's pretty obvious when you perform it, so there will be no mistakes or accidents



Why?

Oh, wait, so if ANYTHING fits ANY part of this criteria???

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed.

Mmm, let's ban any stages with hazards or shifting platforms such as smashville and YI(Brawl) then. I mean, they do have luck on their side, like, what if x, y, or z.

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)

• 
  Hm, like, maybe, a chain grab? They make the grabs do more damage as you can instant regrab. GASP!
  

  [*]Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)

  Well, DDD's infinite has a cap so the length of time is finite. =/ This also is called stalling.
  

  [*]Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match.
  [/LIST

  Infinite does not ensure the loss of a stock. People can break out. It ensures a stock at 100%+. So, DDD's infinite doesn't fit in here.
  
  

  Defensive technique
  

  • Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of time

  • 
    Well, truth be told, this won't even work for MK's IDC because nobody has the finger dexterity to do it for 8 minutes straight, lol. This fits under "overcentralizing" anyhow.
    

    [*]Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)

  This fits under stalling. DDD's infinite does not stall btw.
  
  
  

  Character (Only after a reasonable amount of playtime has passed)
  

  • Has no matches at which said character is at a disadvantage OR has fewer than X amount of neutral match ups

  • 
    The X number will simply be an arbitrary number. That's stupid, lol. If so, without Metaknight, marth might be banned, and we might start having a slippery slope. Sounds good at first, but no.
    

    [*]Has 1 or more moves that guarantee a stock at any % in the match (if TL's down A glitch was able to be reproduced accidentally, effectively, and consistently) WHICH cannot be banned or monitored.

    Well, only if it works on multiple characters. Namely, if it overcentralizes the metagame.
    
    

    [Note]Characters should NOT be banned altogether, but at the very most limited to ditto's.

  Limited to dittos is called overcentralizing the metagame if I'm reading this correctly, lol.
  
  

 

[Pi]

Oh, wait, so if ANYTHING fits ANY part of this criteria???

Respective to the categories - offensive, defensive, character and stage

Mmm, let's ban any stages with hazards or shifting platforms such as smashville and YI(Brawl) then. I mean, they do have luck on their side, like, what if x, y, or z.

Within reason o.O
I could go into more specifics if you what but I don't think we need that. I'm not proposing - nor was the criteria proposing- that any of our currently acceptable stages should be up for ban.

Hm, like, maybe, a chain grab? They make the grabs do more damage as you can instant regrab. GASP!

A chaingrab is not 1 move, it's a technique. I even gave an example on this one o.O

Well, DDD's infinite has a cap so the length of time is finite. =/ This also is called stalling.

New criteria, ignore the current caps on moves and techniques.

Infinite does not ensure the loss of a stock. People can break out. It ensures a stock at 100%+. So, DDD's infinite doesn't fit in here.

Wasn't directly referring to an infinite here. (And you can break out before he gets the Dthrow out? I don't see this very often o.o)

Well, truth be told, this won't even work for MK's IDC because nobody has the finger dexterity to do it for 8 minutes straight, lol. This fits under "overcentralizing" anyhow.

Ignore difficulty factor pl0x0rz.

This fits under stalling. DDD's infinite does not stall btw.

It can. And again - not directly referring to D3's infinite/CG here.

The X number will simply be an arbitrary number. That's stupid, lol. If so, without Metaknight, marth might be banned, and we might start having a slippery slope. Sounds good at first, but no.

The X number is something for the SBR to fill in. Not meant to be left as-is of course.

Well, only if it works on multiple characters. Namely, if it overcentralizes the metagame.

...What? Are you adding something to this criteria? if so why?

Limited to dittos is called overcentralizing the metagame if I'm reading this correctly, lol.

Na, what I'm saying is - take MK for example - should we decide to ban him I propose that we not ban him from tourney play altogether but instead limit his appearance to ditto's only; this way if two people want to use MK vs each other they can, but he cannot be used against any other character.

If you want to refute my criteria give me reasons why it won't work. Give me exceptions you find
at the very least give examples to help me understand more of what you mean

 

[MBlaze]

Good reason for the banning.

 

[Dark Sonic]

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed.

Define "within reason."

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)

• Well, we don't have any of these.
  

  [*]Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)

  Ice Climber's infinites on everybody. The 5 or 6 infinites on Wario. Various locks when done against a wall (but not when done without a wall or a walk off).
  

  [*]Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match.

Ice Climber's infinites and The infinites on Wario.

Defensive technique

• Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of time

Well, the only thing I could think of is....IDC. I mean, even Ledgestalling doesn't render you invincible. Good thing that IDC already fits under "over-centralization" huh.

[*]Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)

All infinites, all locks (exclusively when done against a wall), "Olimar's perfect camp" (lol Inui I really want to see this)

So, you really want to go with this? You really want us to ban Ice Climber's infinites and the infinites on Wario? And all Jab locks and Laser locks (they can be deadly effective on certain parts of Delfino Plaza, as by the time the stage changes you've racked a lot of damage and the jab locks also act as a "jab reset."

Wasn't directly referring to an infinite here. (And you can break out before he gets the Dthrow out? I don't see this very often o.o)

You can with Mario, Samus, and Luigi.

 

[aeghrur]

Respective to the categories - offensive, defensive, character and stage




Within reason o.O
I could go into more specifics if you what but I don't think we need that. I'm not proposing - nor was the criteria proposing- that any of our currently acceptable stages should be up for ban.

Mkay.

A chaingrab is not 1 move, it's a technique. I even gave an example on this one o.O

I'm saying, if this affects infinites, it should affect chaingrabs as both are techniques.

New criteria, ignore the current caps on moves and techniques.

Wait, what? Why would you do this? We ban those things that can't be monitored, and we put caps on those that can so they won't stall. Why should we disregard both? Are you going to make new criterias everytime something doesn't fit? No, stick with your current criterias, and stop making up new ones. Otherwise, simply make a WHOLE new criteria. Don't just add and edit as if you can edit the criteria, I can too and just ban everything. =/

Wasn't directly referring to an infinite here. (And you can break out before he gets the Dthrow out? I don't see this very often o.o)

Yes, you can break out, especially if your like, luigi mario or samus. They have to pummel, you can break out. They don't pummel, they limit their infinite to like, 5 grabs.

Ignore difficulty factor pl0x0rz.

Ban IC infinite pl0x0rz

It can. And again - not directly referring to D3's infinite/CG here.

It WON'T because of the cap on the infinite.

The X number is something for the SBR to fill in. Not meant to be left as-is of course.

What makes their numbers not arbitrary too?

...What? Are you adding something to this criteria? if so why?

No, I'm saying your criterias either fit under stalling or over centrilization. Neither of which applies to the infinite.

Na, what I'm saying is - take MK for example - should we decide to ban him I propose that we not ban him from tourney play altogether but instead limit his appearance to ditto's only; this way if two people want to use MK vs each other they can, but he cannot be used against any other character.

Okay... so basically, your saying MK mains only get to play MK dittos? Oh... dang, harsh, lmao. Why not just ban it all together? They can play MK dittos in friendlies anyhow... or MMs...

If you want to refute my criteria give me reasons why it won't work. Give me exceptions you find
at the very least give examples to help me understand more of what you mean

Okay, for some of them, I have refuted your criteria.
For more of them, I've just stated they fit under the current banning criterias:
Stalling or Overcentralizing.

 

[Pi]

Define "within reason."

Nothing to extreme; eliminating items --but keeping all our current stages
Again I could go into more specifics but I don't feel its necessary -- there is no problem in this department. The ban on items and stages have not been brought up for debate for a reason.

Well, we don't have any of these.

Nope.

Ice Climber's infinites on everybody. The 5 or 6 infinites on Wario. Various locks when done against a wall (but not when done without a wall or a walk off).
Ice Climber's infinites and The infinites on Wario.

Under this criteria they would be banned.

Well, the only thing I could think of is....IDC. I mean, even Ledgestalling doesn't render you invincible. Good thing that IDC already fits under "over-centralization" huh.
All infinites, all locks (exclusively when done against a wall), "Olimar's perfect camp" (lol Inui I really want to see this)

Yes, IDC.
And the 2nd criteria would cover ledge-stalling
(We ban all walled stages so this is irrelevant, and delfino changes so it's not infinite)
I doubt olimar has a sure fire way to avoid his opponent 100%.

So, you really want to go with this? You really want us to ban Ice Climber's infinites and the infinites on Wario? And all Jab locks and Laser locks (they can be deadly effective on certain parts of Delfino Plaza, as by the time the stage changes you've racked a lot of damage and the jab locks also act as a "jab reset."

(Ignoring deflinio because the stage changes)
And yes, under this criteria IC's infinites and all others infinites (regardless of how many characters they affect) would be banned.

You can with Mario, Samus, and Luigi.

But I mean D3 grabs you and down throws directly after - doesn't pummel, just grab then throw - the window is very small. (Also, I'm not proposing banning this -- was just curious as how fast you think people escape )


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm saying, if this affects infinites, it should affect chaingrabs as both are techniques.

"Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)"

I'm talking more like if we could glitch a singular move, like a B move or an A move, not a technique. Techniques are handled by the other criteria.

Wait, what? Why would you do this? We ban those things that can't be monitored, and we put caps on those that can so they won't stall. Why should we disregard both? Are you going to make new criterias everytime something doesn't fit? No, stick with your current criterias, and stop making up new ones. Otherwise, simply make a WHOLE new criteria. Don't just add and edit as if you can edit the criteria, I can too and just ban everything. =/

We don't ban things that can't be monitored o.o
how would we enforce the ban?

What things do we have caps on - would they not be eliminated with this new criteria?

Why shouldn't we invest some time in a more detailed specific criteria? 'overcentralize the metagame' sure as hell aint perfect.

We can do better, why the hell shouldn't we?

And yes, that's how things are fine tuned - adapting as new situations arrive
That is a major flaw with the 'old criteria'. It works - but it limits the game too much. Removing 1 technique (which is only usable on 6 characters) vs removing 6 characters - which limits the game more?

Yes, you can break out, especially if your like, luigi mario or samus. They have to pummel, you can break out. They don't pummel, they limit their infinite to like, 5 grabs.

The infinite on luigi, mario or samus does not meet the criteria -therefore it wouldn't be banned.

Ban IC infinite pl0x0rz

They would be o.o.

It WON'T because of the cap on the infinite.

Irrelevant under this new critiera. It doesn't fit the stalling bill but it does fall under the others.

What makes their numbers not arbitrary too?

What makes the caps not arbitrary? They are in a position to make the number and it would be reasonable. don't doubt them

No, I'm saying your criterias either fit under stalling or over centrilization. Neither of which applies to the infinite.

This NEW criteria WOULD apply to the infinites.

Okay... so basically, your saying MK mains only get to play MK dittos? Oh... dang, harsh, lmao. Why not just ban it all together? They can play MK dittos in friendlies anyhow... or MMs...

I'm threw this in here because it popped into my head. I'm not advocating the ban of MK I'm saying if he fits the character criteria for a ban it would not be a full ban - he would not be fully removed from tourney play, he would just be isolated to MK ditto's, savvy?

Okay, for some of them, I have refuted your criteria.
For more of them, I've just stated they fit under the current banning criterias:
Stalling or Overcentralizing.

My rebuttal ~

 

[aeghrur]

They would be o.o.

And that right there just killed all credibility in your criteria's banning of infinites.
This should not be a just criteria for banning infinites in any way what so ever.

 

[da K.I.D.]

And that right there just killed all credibility in your criteria's banning of infinites.
This should not be a just criteria for banning infinites in any way what so ever.

i felt the same way you did about IC CGs until i saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rUKGJVvZg

watch the first death and than skip to 3:00
if every match turns into that, they might have to be.

 

[Pi]

And that right there just killed all credibility in your criteria's banning of infinites.
This should not be a just criteria for banning infinites in any way what so ever.

Um, it's not... having complete control over your opponents character -- racking up % and disposing of him as you see fit?

How does this kill my credibility? If people were using these infinite's to win matches by YOUR criteria they would be banned any way. Wouldn't they?

The only reason they are NOT banned is because they are NOT being used to win matches because they are difficult.

Hell -- if people didn't use D3's infinite to win matches we wouldn't need a ban
But people do and will because it's easy

Ya feel me?


This new criteria would ban them which would simply take them out of the game before they became a problem.
Nip it in the butt -- so to speak.

The IC's are not a bad character and why would anyone spend any length of time learning to play them any other way than a style revolving around grab game when it could (if performed correctly) guarantee you the stock.

 

[beamswordsman]

Hell -- if people didn't use D3's infinite to win matches we wouldn't need a ban
But people do and will because it's easy

If it works, people are gonna use it regardless of difficulty.

The IC's are not a bad character and why would anyone spend any length of time learning to play them any other way than a style revolving around grab game when it could (if performed correctly) guarantee you the stock.

Because not everyone plays the same?

 

[Pi]

If it works, people are gonna use it regardless of difficulty.

Um, yes, of course. I said this in response to what he said about IC's infinite's not being banned. The only reason is because people haven't been using them (mainly because they are difficult to pull off).

If they were easier to perform and set up they would be banned.

Because not everyone plays the same?

Of course not, otherwise we'd all be playing the same character.

But nobody who plays competitively with the 'play to win' mindset who plays the IC is going to ignore their infinite's



Are you sure you're not just arguing for the sake of it?

 

[aeghrur]

i felt the same way you did about IC CGs until i saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rUKGJVvZg

watch the first death and than skip to 3:00
if every match turns into that, they might have to be.

It's defeatable. Easily. MK-IC 70:30 anyone?
Anther over Lain anyone? Yeah, infinite ICs should not be banned.
Yet, by Khiht's criteria, they should, and I can quote him on that. He said:
1. Difficulty doesn't matter in this criteria
2. Current rules against stalling shouldn't matter( so yeah, current rules don't matter, let's abolish and COMPLETELY make new ones. -_-)
3. ICs infinite should be banned in this.

What? We all agreed ICs infinites are VERY situational and that they should not be banned. Why should we allow a criteria for banning that bans a core part of a character's gameplay? We shouldn't, and this ban criteria should not be adopted. /end.

 

[Pi]

What? We all agreed ICs infinites are VERY situational and that they should not be banned. Why should we allow a criteria for banning that bans a core part of a character's gameplay? We shouldn't, and this ban criteria should not be adopted. /end.

What sticky is that in?


The core part of a characters gameplay? How can it be the core part if it's VERY situational?

The IC's are not a bad character without infinite's.

Do you not agree that if the IC's infinite's were easier to set up and pull off they would be banned?

They have NOT been banned because they have not proven themselves to be a problem
But they OBVIOUSLY have the potential to.
And people are working on them perfecting them perfecting them and the second that they do -- they will get banned.

Why should we let this continue?



Criteria for banning (Rough Draft):

General

• Anything that can, within reason, be removed from the game to reduce the luck factor should be removed. (IE. Items)

Offensive Technique

• Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)
• Renders opponents input (within reason of human ability) ineffective for an indefinite length of time. (Inescapable)
• Ensures the loss of a stock at any % in the match.

Defensive technique

• Renders user invincible for an indefinite length of time
• Allows user to evade interaction with their opponent, without fail, for an indefinite length of time. (Stalls, and MK's IDC)

Stages

• Has features which can be taken advantage of to ensure the loss of a stock at any % in the match.
• Reduces matches to a more luck than skill, or to an unreasonable amount of luck:skill ratio
• Has features which can be taken advantage of to 'lock' the opponent - rendering their input (within reason of human ability) ineffective.

Character (Only after a reasonable amount of playtime has passed)

• Has no matches at which said character is at a disadvantage OR has fewer than X amount of neutral match ups
• Has 1 or more moves that guarantee a stock at any % in the match (if TL's down A glitch was able to be reproduced accidentally, effectively, and consistently) WHICH cannot be banned or monitored.
  [Note]Characters should NOT be banned altogether, but at the very most limited to ditto's.

This is more like the type of criteria we should have
Not 'overcentralize the metagame'
Rough draft - Not final.

 

[cutter]

Ban IC's infintes?

What a joke. They will never be officially banned.

 

[Pi]

Ban IC's infintes?

What a joke. They will never be officially banned.

They would be banned already if they were easier to use o.O

Hell they even fit the OLD criteria -- theoretically.

 

[aeghrur]

THANK YOU CUTTER.
And I'm officially done with this naive and idiotic thread now.
Note: Not all the people in this thread are naive and idiotic. Just most have one or the other, myself included at times.

 

[cutter]

@ knihT: Read this from Hylian in reference to ICs infinites:

If this technique was broken then you would see IC players EVERYWHERE. WINNING everything. But you don't. Because it's not broken.

Even if you want the chaingrabs banned, how would even enforce it?

So does that mean I am only allowed to grab 3 times the entire match? Can I only grab them once? Do I have to do two attacks again before I can grab? 3? I am pretty sure if I throw them, then I fair them with nana, I just did a grab, and then an attack. I am still not allowed to grab? What if I do Throw, to fair, to iceblock? 2 attacks. Can I grab after that? What about, throw to fair to block lock to jab to grab? Is that considered a chaingrab?

You say I can't grab 3 times in a row. So I can still grab, throw 3 times, hit them with an attack, and then grab again? If that is banned then how many attacks am I allowed to do before I can grab again? Can I throw with popo, then footstool them with nana and grab as they get up off the ground? What if I footstool into Ice block into grab? There are so many things I can do with climbers, that you would basically have to ban every single one of my combos. Why not just ban IC's alltogether? What limits me from doing these things? I can infinite someone while only grabbing them once between like 3 hits. Thats not at all grabs in a row. If you ban this, you are going to have to tell me EXACTLY what I can't do, or I will do it. I have MANY death combos. I don't use them, because I don't need to. They are still there.

Also:

I really don't think you do. You said I cannot grab more then 3 times in a row right? Guess what? I can still infinite. By 3 different methods. 1 grab still by your theory means a stock lost. And there is no practical way you could ban these without banning climbers alltogether, because they invovle footstools, squalls, grabs, ice blocks, reverse block from footstools...The ONLY way you are going to stop me from doing these is if you tell me exactly what I can't do. If you say I can't grab more then 3 times in a row, fine, but I can still infinite. If you say I can't do any infinites, you are going to need to define them, because I can explain ways to get out of them and I can just use 100% damage combos that can be escaped after 100% due to DI, which are not infinites.

 

[Dark Sonic]

(Ignoring deflinio because the stage changes)

Why would you ignore Delfino? They are still 0-death with the opponent not being able to do anything. They may not be "infinite," but they are indeed 0-death.

But I mean D3 grabs you and down throws directly after - doesn't pummel, just grab then throw - the window is very small. (Also, I'm not proposing banning this -- was just curious as how fast you think people escape )

It doesn't work on those 3 without the pummel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UyrHXK36A&feature=related


"Increases in power due to a glitch in the game. (Ex. If we could some how glitch a move to do more damage than normal)"

I'm talking more like if we could glitch a singular move, like a B move or an A move, not a technique. Techniques are handled by the other criteria.

The infinite on luigi, mario or samus does not meet the criteria -therefore it wouldn't be banned.

The infinite on Bowser is not actually an infinite, it's a small step chaingrab.

Guess it doesn't meet the criteria for him either. DDDs infinite would only be banned against DK and....DDD himself????

Also, Hylian just ***** your face with regards to Ice Climber's infinite.

They would be banned already if they were easier to use o.O

Hell they even fit the OLD criteria -- theoretically.

No they would be banned if they were easier to land. There is a big difference.
Ease of use doesn't matter, because someone will learn it, just like we saw in Da Kid's lovely video. However, ease of landing is something that is very hard to improve. Sure you could get a few more grab setups, but in reality, avoiding a grab from Ice Climbers is not that hard, considering they have terrible grab range and few of their moves actually combo into their grabs (except the moves that they use to combo....from the grab. lol) I think you might be able to combo into a grab if you desync them and have one of them do a weak hit while the other does the grab, but irronically their weak hits also have bad range (with the exception of blizzard) and they really just have bad range in general.

If they had DDDs grab range they would fit the old criteria, because they'd have an infinite that they can consistantly land against every character in the game, and the only situation would be to switch...to ICE CLIMBERS to avoid getting infinited (hell I don't think Nana can even stop you from being infinited, so you'd have to infinite them first in order to win).

See the difference?

 

[Pi]

@ knihT: Read this from Hylian in reference to ICs infinites:



Even if you want the chaingrabs banned, how would even enforce it?



Also:

Ah, but the technique IS broken -- it's just proven too hard for people to pull off.

How would you enforce it? Easy, any set up for the infinite can't be used into a re-grab.
This means that the IC's Dthrow CG's are just fine.
But alternating grabs are not.
Hell the ice-block lock
The Dthrow fair ice block
All of those are fine

Just don't re-grab the character and turn him around to repeat. Limit yourself to the direction you're facing and the stages end.


And -- if you don't mind me asking -- when did Hylian become an expert on what is broken and what is not?

Why would you ignore Delfino? They are still 0-death with the opponent not being able to do anything. They may not be "infinite," but they are indeed 0-death.

Because it can't be used at any point in the match. It can't be used when the stage is in the flying platform state or the beach state or the platform surrounded on both sides by water state or the 3 platforms w/ water underneath state.

It doesn't work on those 3 without the pummel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Uyr...eature=related

Yes, I know, it would not be banned for this reason.

The infinite on Bowser is not actually an infinite, it's a small step chaingrab.

Guess it doesn't meet the criteria for him either. DDDs infinite would only be banned against DK and....DDD himself????

Guess it doesn't, do you have a problem with that?

No they would be banned if they were easier to land. There is a big difference.
Ease of use doesn't matter, because someone will learn it, just like we saw in Da Kid's lovely video. However, ease of landing is something that is very hard to improve. Sure you could get a few more grab setups, but in reality, avoiding a grab from Ice Climbers is not that hard, considering they have terrible grab range and few of their moves actually combo into their grabs (except the moves that they use to combo....from the grab. lol) I think you might be able to combo into a grab if you desync them and have one of them do a weak hit while the other does the grab, but irronically their weak hits also have bad range (with the exception of blizzard) and they really just have bad range in general.

If they had DDDs grab range they would fit the old criteria, because they'd have an infinite that they can consistantly land against every character in the game, and the only situation would be to switch...to ICE CLIMBERS to avoid getting infinited (hell I don't think Nana can even stop you from being infinited, so you'd have to infinite them first in order to win).

They are not exactly easy to perform either.
And I thought we were clumping ease of use and ease of set up together.

We are speaking theory any way -- why should we factor in ease of set up?

You said it -- if they were easier to set up they would have already been banned. There's no solid evidence that suggests IC mains won't make the set up easier.

Don't people keep saying difficulty shouldn't be a factor? Why are you bringing it up.


You seem like you think I made these criteria to get read of all chaingrabs on every character or something...

I simply made them because I don't agree with the old criteria
I feel it is too vague and not specific enough
Not tailored enough for OUR game
Anything that neglects a character or two willingly is obviously not perfect. Especially when it isn't even for the greater good.

 

[da K.I.D.]

The core part of a characters gameplay? How can it be the core part if it's VERY situational?
OH SNAP!!

Do you not agree that if the IC's infinite's were easier to set up and pull off they would be banned?

They have NOT been banned because they have not proven themselves to be a problem
But they OBVIOUSLY have the potential to.
And people are working on them perfecting them perfecting them and the second that they do -- they will get banned.

I agree with this, for it is 100% supertruth.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Ah, but the technique IS broken -- it's just proven too hard for people to pull off.

Why is it broken? What makes infinites broken? I know of a lot of infinites that are actually pretty laughable.

How would you enforce it? Easy, any set up for the infinite can't be used into a re-grab.
This means that the IC's Dthrow CG's are just fine.
But alternating grabs are not.
Hell the ice-block lock
The Dthrow fair ice block
All of those are fine

Just don't re-grab the character and turn him around to repeat. Limit yourself to the direction you're facing and the stages end.

So the various forms of zero to deaths are fine (guranteed deaths mind you) are fine by turning around once or twice is bad?

Because it can't be used at any point in the match. It can't be used when the stage is in the flying platform state or the beach state or the platform surrounded on both sides by water state or the 3 platforms w/ water underneath state.

So because it's situational you wouldn't ban it right?

Well....Ice Climber's infinite is situational. You have to get a grab (with Ice Climber's mind you) while Nana is next to you. Easier said than done in practice.

Doing the infinite is one thing, landing the infinite is another (try landing this on Metaknight or Marth)

Yes, I know, it would not be banned for this reason.

Okay

Guess it doesn't, do you have a problem with that?

Okay, so what you are banning is "infinites."

0-300% death combos are fine, but not "infinites"

Now tell me, what makes "infinites" worse than 0-300% combos. Under our current system, they are exactly the same (since we cap infinites) so in that sense, the small step chaingrab on Bowser is just about as deadly as the infinite on DK (both of them die from it). Why should we ban DK's but not Bowser's?

What exactly makes infinites bad?

 

[Hylian]

Someone asked me to come in here and shed some light reguarding the IC infinites.

I'm just going to make a few solid points so I won't go really in depth unless I need to.


Here we go:

- First of all I'm going to point out how you would justify banning D3's infinite and not IC's. Personally, I don't think D3's infinite should be banned I'm just providing reasoning for people who think it should be but the IC infinite is fine and are at a loss of words. Basically, the D3 infinite is always present in the match-up. The IC infinite is not. IC's cannot infinite if they are seperated or nana is dead. That means you have options to shut down the infinite and it actually adds depth to the matches which start to focus on strategizing ways to seperate the climbers and keep them so. The only option the 5 characters have against D3 is to not get grabbed which is pretty hard considering D3's amazing grab range and longevity. Note: I don't think D3's infinites should be banned.

- The IC infinites are not broken. The have not proven to be broken in any region, they have never upset a top player(M2K/Azen/DSF), they have never dominated a tournament. IC players struggle to make top 5 at tournaments much less win. I can't think of the last tournament an IC player won. Logically, there is no reason to remove a tactic and make a character not viable in tournaments when they are hardly viable in the first place according to results.

- Yes the Infinites are hard. That doesn't matter though. I can do them pretty much 100% and I know a few others that can as well. People shouldn't argue about how hard something is unless it dwells on the realm of impossibility in reguards to consistancy. Just pointing this out.

- Even though the IC's are able to 0-death every character they still have horrible match-ups. Rob,MK,Diddy, and a lot of other characters have significant advantages vs the climbers and are able to seperate them and avoid being grabbed at viatle moments. This have been proven true through tournament results.

- Not only do the IC's have many bad match-ups, they also are one of the easiest characters in the game to counterpick. Did you know the simple tilting of Lylat can completly throw off a chaingrab? The slants on Yoshi's island don't allow for Dthrow fair to IceBlock regrab? Any moving stage or stage with Hazards is potientially horrible for the Ice Climbers. They have so many bad stages that it's almost impossible for them to ban a stage and play on one they don't mind. Combine this with character match-ups and smart play and you have a character that can't even place high in tournaments with the ability to 0-death the entire cast.

- You have options to dismantle and shut down the infinite. The IC's can not infinite if they are not by each other when they grab an opponent. If you make it a point to seperate the climbers you create options for yourself. When you seperate them attack the CPU as it cannot DI and dies easily. As long as you can effectivly seperate them then they cannot infinite you. You have options to shut it down. Use them. Kill nana.

- You cannot feasibly ban the infinites. It is almost impossible to create a rule the covers all variations of the IC infinites(I can think of over 20 off the top of my head and that doesn't include the alt grabs.) without just banning them from grabbing in the first place. That in itself is impossible to control in a tournament setting so you would just have to ban the character alltogether. If you do manage to take away every combo they have(the infinites which can only be banned by banning pretty much every IC combo) then you just killed the character. IC's already preform horribly in tournament and you just took away the only thing they can actually use to gain leverage against their opponents. Congrats.

Feel free to copy and paste this post anyone who wants to show someone why the IC infinites shouldn't be banned. I didn't even go in depth with this either . I'm saving that for a topic I'm going to make reguarding all chaingrabs and infinites.

-Hylian.

 

[Dark Sonic]

They are not exactly easy to perform either.

That really doesn't matter. The method is there and people just have to practice it.

And I thought we were clumping ease of use and ease of set up together.

NO WE ARE NOT!!!! It would be stupid to do so. People can practice doing the infinites, because the methods are already known and fleshed out. They already know what to do, so all they have to practice is doing it

However, setting up the infinites is a completely different matter, as actually setting up the infinite in the first place can be very difficult. As Hylian said, picking a stage with angles, focusing on Nana, avoiding their terrible grab range, ect. are all simple ways to disable Ice Climbers from performing the infinite on you. So far there is no sure fire method for Ice Climbers to get around this except "be better than them."

We are speaking theory any way -- why should we factor in ease of set up?

Because if something is dificult to set up, it means that it will rarely factor into matchups because it will not happen often. If something is too difficult to set up (as in, requires your opponent to make a grave mistake or requires an uncommon situation to be fulfilled) then it won't affect the matchup since it simply won't occur often enough.

That is why ease of setup is a factor, but ease of performance is not. They will know how to do it with 100% consistency, but that does not mean that they will actually get the chance to use it.

You said it -- if they were easier to set up they would have already been banned. There's no solid evidence that suggests IC mains won't make the set up easier.

And there is also no solid evidence to suggest that the IC mains will make the set up easier. There is no laid out method for fulfilling the conditions of the infinite consistently and landing the infinite thus far has come down to the other player simply messing up their spacing or the IC player just plain predicting what the opponent was going to do (and even then it still has to be something that can actually land them a grab if predicted, they're not doing **** about MK's d-tilt)

There is however, mountains of anecdotal evidence showing that the ICs infinites are not currently being landed often enough in real matches to actually cause a problem. They have one win noted on the Character rankings list. That's right, one. Like Hylian said, they have an infinite on every character in the game and they can't even break high tier.

Don't people keep saying difficulty shouldn't be a factor? Why are you bringing it up.

Because the separation needs to be made. To many people don't realize that "ease of use" actually doesn't mean anything. "Ease of performance" and "Ease of setup" are the primary components of "Ease of use," but the only one even remotely important of the group is "Ease of setupt" (provided that it's not unreasonably dificult to perform, like....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9sa8133NBI) People learn how to to the craziest things you know. Mearly "playing" some fighting games requires ridiculous amounts of practice but people do it and they you see matches of Melty Blood or MvC2 and you think they're on crack or something.

 

[Pi]

Why is it broken? What makes infinites broken? I know of a lot of infinites that are actually pretty laughable.

Let's not use the word 'broken' because it is too vague. I believe that infinite's are ban-worthy because they fall under the criteria I listed above.

Once in them (regardless of difficulty of set up/use) the character is at the will of the user until the user messes up or disposes of them.

To me, this is ban-worthy.

So the various forms of zero to deaths are fine (guranteed deaths mind you) are fine by turning around once or twice is bad?

Various forms...I'm not sure of which you speak
I know some of the IC's infinites push a character forward, I'm saying don't turn around and go back the other way, once you hit the end of the stage treat it as if it were D3's chaingrab and finish with your opponent.
And as far as the infinites that keep the IC's in place while continual grabbing occurs - do not use these.

So because it's situational you wouldn't ban it right?

In regards to the stage - yes.

If there were stages in which the IC's could NOT under no circumstances perform the infinite then it would not be a problem.

Well....Ice Climber's infinite is situational. You have to get a grab (with Ice Climber's mind you) while Nana is next to you. Easier said than done in practice.

Situational in regards to the player - not the stage. You can't control the stage.

Doing the infinite is one thing, landing the infinite is another (try landing this on Metaknight or Marth)

Ease of set up IS a factor
Just as much as ease of USE is a factor

So there will be no double standards here, you either include both, or ignore both. Your choice. Ease of use & ease of set up - or neither?

Okay, so what you are banning is "infinites."

Yes

0-300% death combos are fine, but not "infinites"

The 0-300% is only so because we have capped it. It is still an infinite.

Now tell me, what makes "infinites" worse than 0-300% combos. Under our current system, they are exactly the same (since we cap infinites) so in that sense, the small step chaingrab on Bowser is just about as deadly as the infinite on DK (both of them die from it). Why should we ban DK's but not Bowser's?

Our current system is flawed - that's why I created a new system.

What exactly makes infinites bad?

What makes them bad is you might as well be playing with your controller plugged out.
That's not competition.

And as far as Hylian's post goes pick out any argument you feel benefits your side. I'll leave it alone for now because he's not exactly taking a side as much as he is simply putting some ideas out there.

That really doesn't matter. The method is there and people just have to practice it.

I know it doesn't matter -- we're speaking theoretically.

NO WE ARE NOT!!!! It would be stupid to do so. People can practice doing the infinites, because the methods are already known and fleshed out. They already know what to do, so all they have to practice is doing it

However, setting up the infinites is a completely different matter, as actually setting up the infinite in the first place can be very difficult. As Hylian said, picking a stage with angles, focusing on Nana, avoiding their terrible grab range, ect. are all simple ways to disable Ice Climbers from performing the infinite on you. So far there is no sure fire method for Ice Climbers to get around this except "be better than them."

It would not be stupid to do so -- we are having a theoretical discussion in which difficulty is NOT a factor.

The methods of use are there, and so are the methods of set up (They just haven't been found)

I agree with you that ease of use and ease of set up are different things, but neither have a place in this discussion because it's all theoretic

'disable' more like 'make it more difficult' It doesn't completely negate the IC's infinites.
Sure there are ways to 'counter' most things, hell I could zair/fireball the whole match VS D3 -- but it isn't a sure fire way to avoid the infinite.
But just because they are an option doesn't mean they should be your only option. This was my argument with CPing.
We have the ability to remove a technique, instead of a character, from the game -- why shouldn't we take it?

Because if something is dificult to set up, it means that it will rarely factor into matchups because it will not happen often. If something is too difficult to set up (as in, requires your opponent to make a grave mistake or requires an uncommon situation to be fulfilled) then it won't affect the matchup since it simply won't occur often enough.

I understand this, but it is irrelevant. It exists, people will find ways to use it
If you're only argument is that 'it is too situational' to be banned
it's a flimsy one indeed. Especially in a theoretical discussion
And if it is SO situational then how large of an impact could it make on the IC's game?
Look at Chu's melee matches; There are matches where he never pulls it off
Matches where he gains 1 stock, 2 stock, 3 stocks, 4 stocks from it
How can you determine what move is 'too situational' to be banned?

Here's how; by waiting for it to become a problem. Why wait? We already know it has the potential.

There are only two courses of action as it stands now;
1) Nobody perfects the infinite and the IC's become a low ranking character because their playstyle is based on the opponents mistakes only.
2) Somebody DOES perfect the infinite -- and it get's banned.

So say we do ban it, IC mains now no longer have to rely on their opponents mistakes, and have to switch to a less grab-happy playstyle. No big deal.

That is why ease of setup is a factor, but ease of performance is not. They will know how to do it with 100% consistency, but that does not mean that they will actually get the chance to use it.
And there is also no solid evidence to suggest that the IC mains will make the set up easier. There is no laid out method for fulfilling the conditions of the infinite consistently and landing the infinite thus far has come down to the other player simply messing up their spacing or the IC player just plain predicting what the opponent was going to do (and even then it still has to be something that can actually land them a grab if predicted, they're not doing **** about MK's d-tilt)

I just don't see where you are coming from on this.
We don't have proof that it will become a problem
We don't have proof that it won't become a problem

If you want to factor in ease of use and ease of set up
Then why shouldn't we ban D3's infinite? It's easy to use and easy to set up. So let's ban it.

You're basically saying if the IC's infinite was easy to use and easy to set up, it would be banned, are you not?

There is however, mountains of anecdotal evidence showing that the ICs infinites are not currently being landed often enough in real matches to actually cause a problem. They have one win noted on the Character rankings list. That's right, one. Like Hylian said, they have an infinite on every character in the game and they can't even break high tier.

The IC's were late bloomers in melee too, if you'll recall.

Because the separation needs to be made. To many people don't realize that "ease of use" actually doesn't mean anything. "Ease of performance" and "Ease of setup" are the primary components of "Ease of use," but the only one even remotely important of the group is "Ease of setupt" (provided that it's not unreasonably dificult to perform, like....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9sa8133NBI) People learn how to to the craziest things you know. Mearly "playing" some fighting games requires ridiculous amounts of practice but people do it and they you see matches of Melty Blood or MvC2 and you think they're on crack or something.

Decide now, do you want to factor in difficulty of use AND set up
Or do you want to leave them out.

It can't just be the one that benefits your argument, otherwise I would be throwing ease of use all around.

 

[PK-ow!]

EDIT:

@kniht:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double+standard

Some good reading for you.

then can you clarify what this objection is? it appears to me that he objects purely because of the fact that Ken did poorly with the items.

. . . yes. Yes that IS his objection. That is the very thing which he is putting to you as the objection.

*shrug*
I hoped people would know that the subject was referring to overcentralizing since I had been speaking of it repeatedly prior.

I was saying it wasn't a sentence because I didn't know what you meant. I still don't.

Why do you ask?
The answer to your question is no. They do not win.

. . .

Okay, you don't understand this argument at all.

This is not a flame, this is a serious wake-up call: If you do not see how the fact of such examples not winning their respective tournaments relates to the argument here, it really is hopeless for you to be at all persuasive.

It's. . . honestly it makes me laugh a little inside. But because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to try and explain it:

You said "items overcentralize in items-on play"

Other guy says "Well, in so-and-so items on tournament, there was a guy who beat out all his competition such that he made it to the grand finals, who also sucks with items (and we can see he sucked with them / did not use them)."

At this point, what you're supposed to do is realize that what he's saying is this: Exists an instance of a player not acknowledging the presence of items strategies in a competitive event, and yet performing excellently, almost winning.

You then realize that this is a contradiction to the defining statement of overcentralization, which is that X overcentralizes a game where, in any competitive event where X is allowed in, *all* playable options involve abusing X, or focusing entirely on countering X. Put alternately, there is no viable way to ignore X and do well in the game.

You realize that Ken, being someone (doesn't matter who), proved there was some viable way of ignoring X (X being items) and doing well in the game.

You then realize that 'the other guy' has just dismantled your statement, empirically-demonstratively, that items centralize the game, barring some radical evasive move by you.

But what you actually did was. . . miss the whole argument entirely. You just fell off the page. It was, as I said, funny in a cruel way. But meh, I say enjoy cheap laughs when you get them. It's different from being cruel.

So, do you get it now?

 

[Cease Tick]

Ease of set up IS a factor
Just as much as ease of USE is a factor

So there will be no double standards here, you either include both, or ignore both. Your choice. Ease of use & ease of set up - or neither?

Lol at slippery slope logic. Just because they're both factors doesn't mean they're equally important. Ease of use hardly matters in high-level play, ease of setup can totally alter a tactic's usefulness.

 

[Hylian]

I am very much so taking a side. IC infinites should not be banned. Respond to my points please. If you cannot then at least agree with me.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Let's not use the word 'broken' because it is too vague. I believe that infinite's are ban-worthy because they fall under the criteria I listed above.

Why do you believe that criteria is valid.

Once in them (regardless of difficulty of set up/use) the character is at the will of the user until the user messes up or disposes of them.

So? DDDs chaingrab on bowser does exactly the same thing. It's just not technically infinite. You just said that Bowser's situation is okay, but DK's is not. I'm asking why?

To me, this is ban-worthy.

Why?

Various forms...I'm not sure of which you speak
I know some of the IC's infinites push a character forward, I'm saying don't turn around and go back the other way, once you hit the end of the stage treat it as if it were D3's chaingrab and finish with your opponent.

And as far as the infinites that keep the IC's in place while continual grabbing occurs - do not use these.

So if they only move slightly foward very slowly it's okay? Or if at the end they chain it into an Iceblock lock (and thus reset) and combo that into a charged smash for a guranteed kill...it's okay?

So because it's not "infinite," but does the same thing it's okay?

And what about the combos that are not actually infinite, but just require the opponent to do some specific action (like smash DI a jab to get out of grab range or something). What if he has Popo do a back throw and have Nana do a blizzard in the other direction (or some other crazy setup since I don't know that much about Iceclimber's backthrow lag) and then has popo grab them again? Is it banned? It's technically not an infinite since it's escapable.

Now lets say that it's something that happens fast enough that you can't humanly react to it (as in, it happens in less than the average reaction time of .2-.25 seconds). If you see it comming you'd be able to escape, but if you don't then it's inescapable. Ban? It gets really arbitrary and as a result there are many ways to "get around" then rule without ever actually breaking it.

In regards to the stage - yes.

If there were stages in which the IC's could NOT under no circumstances perform the infinite then it would not be a problem.

Once again (since you dodged my question) why are infinites bad.

I believe that infinites and guaranteed zero to death combos are pretty much the same thing. They both cause death to the opponent with the opponent not being able to do anything. I also believe that both are perfectly acceptable in their nature. "Infinites" are not inherently bad. The only thing that matters is how often they actually come into play, which in the Ice Climber's case, is not very option.

Situational in regards to the player - not the stage. You can't control the stage.

And? Landing a grab, while Nana is next to you, on a warry opponent, with Ice climber's grab range, is just as situational and just as easy to avoid really. If you're having trouble "not getting grabbed under those conditions" then just kill Nana.

Ease of set up IS a factor

This is true

Just as much as ease of USE is a factor

Ease of set up is a part of ease of use by definition.

What I think you are reffering to is "ease of performance" (how hard something is to do, such as multishining vs waveshining)

But what you are forgetting is that this is not easy to set up. This is not something that you'll actually be seeing often. This is not something that is swaying matchups or even winning. People can do the infinite. Several people have already perfected it in multiple forms. So why aren't they winning?!?!

The reason? Because they are not being given the chance to actually do the infinite. You really can have several matches against Ice Climbers without ever fulfilling the conditions for their infinite. You might get grabbed sometimes, but rarely when Nana is around.

So there will be no double standards here, you either include both, or ignore both. Your choice. Ease of use & ease of set up - or neither?

Ease of performance is a factor of ease of use. What you mean is "ease of performance" which would be the other factor of ease of use.

Ease of use is made of
1. Ease of setup (how often the situation presents itself)

and

2.Ease of performance (how consistently it can be done when the situation presents itself)

As long as ease of performance is humanly possible (to do consistently) then it is assumed to be 100% (as in, they won't mess up) so the only thing that matters at that point is ease of setup. In the Ice Climber's case, it is not easy to set up and shows no evidence of becoming easy to set up, so it will continue to be a zero to death guaranteed grab combo....that is rarely landed on competent players.

Yes

Okay and now for the next

The 0-300% is only so because we have capped it. It is still an infinite.

I'm reffering to d-tilting over and over with Marth along the walls on delfino plaza. But sorry, 300% was misleading. How about 200% to a d-smash?

Our current system is flawed - that's why I created a new system.

You're new system is flawed and you have yet to prove that the current system is flawed.

What makes them bad is you might as well be playing with your controller plugged out.
That's not competition.

Says who? You?

Pretty much every other community disagrees. Heck a lot of people in this community disagree. Again, explain why this isn't competitive. Unlike other games with infinites you have multiple stocks and a ridiculously large amount of room to maneuver in. And the conditions for a lot of infinites are extreme (Gannondorf grabbing a Wario?) Infinites are no different than zero-death combos, because they really just accomplish the same goal. Killing the opponent. What you're essentially saying is that killing an opponent with an infinite loop is bad, but killing your opponent with a semi-infinite loop is okay. (in both cases they have no control over their character and in both cases they die).

"Stalling" with the infinite so far has been the only issue, but in reality, we're already being lenient by putting a damage cap on. In every other fighting game, when you are caught in an infinite you simply lose the match. But in smash, for some reason people just can't handle this concept, and I suppose it is reasonable given that fulfilling the conditions for some of these infinites is pretty easy, so we put a cap on it to ensure that pulling off the infinite one time does not win you the match (like it would in other games).