Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Well said.
I've played Lain, and can say the IC's have more than just throws. Its tricky as heck to think you can punish Popo and then Nana just comes out and uairs you. Not to mention the combo breakers, the fact its hard to grab them yourself, and the range at which they can resync catches people off guard so much lol.
They have little to no metagame outside of cgs, so they just would have to re-evolve their metagame to fit around not having infinites or only having one of them. I would personally like to see more desynching AT's that didn't involve grabbing, but I don't see that happening when grabs are the primary skill trained.
The footstool is like 100 times easier than the other one. I helped someone practice it once and they got it in like 5 minutes.
Soooo..... You want to remove alt grabs while keeping their footstool infinites that do the EXACT same thing as an alt grab by removing all control from the opponent and force them into zero to death?
Ok, so we should develop those combos/moves beyond the throw. We're four pages in and only like 3 people have suggested anything that didn't relate back to their infinite or grab game. As teron said we should try to let the ICs develop a new metagame be it freezing, hard to combo, whatever.
SMK hit the nail on the head.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work, but wouldn't increasing input delay to nana make non-grab desynching AT's more difficult? (or possibly useless, I don't know what AT's they currently have that don't relate to grabs) Are there any other ways we could get rid of the infinites besides that and disabling Nana's grab?
Lolwut. More delay between Popo and Nana would make desyncing easier because you could buffer a move while Nana starts another one. Doing so would buff they're desync games and remove the infinite because nana would be too slow (cue sonic side taunt) to do a regrab after Popo's grab, but it could allow for CGs at higher percents that can be interrupted with DI. Their grab game might take a hit, but if they can still CG the hit isnt huge, and their main unique attribute, desyncing, would get a big buff.
I mostly agree with this whole post simply because the ICs haven't been proven to be broken with their infinite in Brawl+ yet and a lot of ICs mains have made comments in their boards that the ICs are inferior to their vBrawl counterpart. This is because of the gameplay changes as Ulevo said.
Tell me, if MK had a grab that instantly reduced a stock, would you not use it over his other moves? Or at least very often.
The CG against a wall and a CG "infinite" on stage against a character with an inferior grab range, CPU required counterpart requirement are not the same thing. You can't compare the two when the only thing they actually have in common is that they are "infinite", and that's exactly what you're doing.
It has nothing to do with how hard it is to learn. It has everything to do with how effective it is, how efficient it is, and how easy it is to set up. As far as players like Ambrose and Lain are concerned, who have nearly mastered the art, how hard or easy it was to learn is completely irrelevant.
This is not vBrawl. At all.
Why remove an aspect of a character if there is nothing wrong with it, Chibo? Especially when it pertains to the unique traits of a character in which we are trying to preserve?
I would guess its the physics. So much easier to CG imo.
because in good competitive games theres ALWAYS a reason the other person is there, in many people's eyes infinties are inherently non-competitive.
AHHH the footstool stuff. That was fun to learn.
1. Because when it is landed the person is screwed and can not get out of it.
1) How is it easier to CG? Their main tool to land a grab, their shield, is significantly nerfed. It no longer can instantly grab characters after an attack has hit the shield, they get pushed back farther, characters have less lag then before to avoid shield grabs, not to mention many characters are being improved.
And in the case of those many people, they're all wrong.
If I use x attack with y character in z scenario, and I follow your DI correctly, you also can't get out of it. You're not even considering the difficulty in actually landing the grab against an equally skilled opponent. This isn't a reason.
This is completely up to the discretion of the IC player, and the technique by no means dictates how the IC are played or even used. I've played Ambrose often, and I can assure you that he doesn't do "nothing but get that grab before someone kills the cpu". It isn't that simplistic. Again, even assuming this were true, which it isn't, it's a ridiculous reason.
What an ignorant statement. First off, this is a balancing thread specifically to alter the IC to make them a character set in the appropriate place in the echelon to compete equally (or as close to) with every other character. If they have a problem with being too powerful, or if they present problematic match ups for certain characters, that also needs to be addressed. Hence why the infinite is even a topic of concern. It's not because everyone doesn't know what IC do except grab.
Sure?
Why is this a reason? In order to tweak or fiddle with a character, we must have a purpose in doing so, otherwise we risk the balance of that character. Playing God for the sake of playing God is not a reason.
They're not dependent on one strategy, and you stating as such displays how ignorant you are to the character. Players like Ambrose and Lain happen to face other equally skilled players such as King Ace and Anther on a regular basis, and still place or even beat these players. I assure you that Anther and King Ace, along with these other highly skilled players do not get grabbed often in a match, and that Ambrose or Lain (along with any other skilled IC main) will ever depend on a grab to win a match.
I am not only arguing for the fact that we have no need to change the IC infinites for the sake that they do not posses a problem for the meta game in Brawl Plus, but that they shouldn't be changed because it isn't simply something that should be dismissed as sloppy programming. That can be argued as well, and I feel no need to get in to it, as it's irrelevant anyway.
I can personally agree with this post. But once again, I'd love to see more IC mains or alts. It seems like a lot of people who aren't good ICs or don't play good ones.
But the error being made there would be the fault of the person being attack for being predictable/predicting. When grabbed you lose control and will not get out until you get KO'd, assuming the IC doesn't either let you out or make a mistake. It was argued in a previous thread that the IC infinite differs from other situations in that the person grabbed has no options until the grab is completed. In attacking situation, however, (assuming the attack initiated is not a true combo) there is always some option that can lead to at least minimizing punishment.
Cobalt's statement was oversimple, sure. But I dont think it can really be argued that much of the IC metagame has been evolved that doesn't involve grabbing.
They're still just two people. Why should I have play with people at a high level of play to find IC mains who don't revolve around grabs?
Assuming there you're right, what is there to lose from turning them off for a little while? I'm fairly certain we're not talking about what's going into the final official set. We're going to be testing any changes that are to be made. What is there to be lost in redeveloping the character around something other than grabs when we can just turn them back on later? I adamantly feel that the IC should have their metagame developed around something other than grabs so that you don't have to be playing the highest level players to find something besides camping on the side of the stage waiting for a grab.
