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.