Infinite discussion

[DJ Dong]

So there was an infinite recently found in SSB4. For those of you who have not seen the video, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDikQiU9fC0

I would hope that Nintendo will patch things like this. It isn't generally a fun thing.

But that's not what these forums are for! This thread is for the discussion of infinites, and maybe a little more specifically, this one.

If Nintendo chooses not to patch issues such as this one, would we ban them from tournaments? We could possibly put a set amount rule on them. I say them assuming more will be found, which there probably will be more infinite tricks found.

Would you want the use of infinites penalized? Why or why not?

 

[Shaya]

The mainstream rulesets have never banned infinites of any kind, beyond the stalling of them (previous games was 300%); this was to stop players from just timing you out with them.

If it doesn't get patched (why would it?) Backend server things are one thing [i.e. fix peach autobans] but gamewise is another.
Furthermore this has been heavily discussed all over, and no other infinites have been found yet. This "infinite" seems to only work on Robin and no other character, in this case, most definitely, we would not restrict it, it sucks for Robin but it's how the cookie crumbles.

 

[Raijinken]

If that's how the cookie crumbles, then I hope other players get their chance to choke on the crumbs.

Perhaps I'm being extremely salty, but I think this is nonsense, and treating it as fair is also nonsense. Hopefully it gets patched out and no further infinites are discovered.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

Ok, what?! You're going to let Robin get screwed by one character counter-pick? That's completely unfair. What if Robin is an amazing character and people resort to using ZSS alone to take him out? It's BEYOND EASY to ban an infinite from competitive play. Don't make Robin suck because of it....because of sheer laziness. -_-

Edit, more ranting: And I don't even plan on maining Robin. Think about it- what if your favorite character was rendered completely useless because of a glitch? Would you simply not care? Come on now, its selfish!

@ Shaya I'm not complaining to you alone, I'm sending this out to any backroomer who thinks this is an adequate thing to permit in the competitive community. News flash; it most definitely is NOT.

@ Raijinken We shouldn't need to wait for a patch. We're a community for Smash- we can take things into our own hands if need be. Why should we wait for one at all? Come on people...don't you want this game to be balanced? Or are you too dead-set on finding your top tiers and nothing else?

 

[Shaya]

Without sounding rude, it's how it has to be?

Who are we, or you, to decide what implementations of the game should be subverted. You're saying Zero Suit Samus should be able to down smash footstool every character in the game except Robin? Other characters may have footstool infinites on her as well because it's unique to her footstool animation. We should ban all of those too? Your emotions say yes, logic says no.

Ness and Lucas being infinited by grab releases was not changed just because their players who haven't been to tournaments before were upset about it.

If the game screws over a character, it really really sucks and I wish it didn't happen, don't get me wrong, but in the long term they cannot be fairly regulated.
Early tournaments during the Brawl era had their various bans on infinites or whatever, but it really is ultimately always impertinent that we keep things as close to the real game as possible, the exceptions being extremely centralising / metagame damaging things... and sorry but Robin having a single bad match up (or potentially many) isn't centralising nor metagame damaging... characters getting screwed over in smash (or any competitive video game ever created) is very very normal.

We have an online mode which may become a significant staple of how things go elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that this is the case when within days of release the majority has already shifted to this idea of 2stocks/5 minutes. You won't be able to stop it online, so people who play that match up in every other setting will have a completely different experience to how Sakurai and Nintendo have implemented this game.

 

[keninblack]

Doesn't really bother me much if it stays in or not.

Infinites are nothing really new to the series by any means, plus its only on one character.

Also from what I could tell at least, this game is shaping up to be pretty extensive on MU's. To the point where you can't really just play one character.

If you're a Robin player, and you don't have the willingness to learn a new character that beats/does well against ZSS so you don't have to deal with the infinite. Than I don't know what to tell you.

Even across the board outside of that example I feel like the game won't let you just get away with playing one character. Unless a Fox/Meta Knight thing happens.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

Without sounding rude, it's how it has to be?

Who are we, or you, to decide what implementations of the game should be subverted. You're saying Zero Suit Samus should be able to down smash footstool every character in the game except Robin? Other characters may have footstool infinites on her as well because it's unique to her footstool animation. We should ban all of those too? Your emotions say yes, logic says no.

Ness and Lucas being infinited by grab releases was not changed just because their players who haven't been to tournaments before were upset about it.

If the game screws over a character, it really really sucks and I wish it didn't happen, don't get me wrong, but in the long term they cannot be fairly regulated.
Early tournaments during the Brawl era had their various bans on infinites or whatever, but it really is ultimately always impertinent that we keep things as close to the real game as possible, the exceptions being extremely centralising / metagame damaging things... and sorry but Robin having a single bad match up (or potentially many) isn't centralising nor metagame damaging... characters getting screwed over in smash is very very normal.

I'm saying it isn't hard to simply say; "you can't perform infinites at this tournament/gathering/etc." ....or is it? Come on now- it shouldn't be hard to stop this kind of thing. I don't mind characters having advantages...but unfair advantages that cause a character to be useless in a single matchup? We can prevent such things without banning hardly anything.

 

[Shaya]

What if there are counters? What if Robin can still win the match up due to being able to avoid down smash? Zero Suit Samus has 0-death'd people out of Down Smash in two games now... one of those characters (Fox) still wins the match up by a solid margin in Brawl (although people threw it in the "Impossible" pile for a very long time by virtue of something that didn't actually nullify the match up: actually all it did was make the match up POSSIBLE for her, because otherwise she wouldn't stand a chance at all against him)
What if there's a way to get out that we won't find out unless there's a reason to find out?

Okay
in tournament
Zero Suit Samus downsmashes you, footstools, you, lasers you and then throws out a kill move.
Banned?

What if ZSS does a second down smash? That still seems fair right? That's not even really any more damaging than a normal combo except it may be more efficient due to move staling negation. So the question is when is too much? OH so you cannot do a second down smash or a second footstool or a second laser? How is that fair to me when another character can achieve the same affect just by up tilting 8 times in a row?

If someone does it in tournament at all, do you pause, quit out of the game, call over a TO and show them a replay? That's going to take 10 minutes, there may not even be a way to have a replay (maximum length). That's a very long time.
To police it fairly is very hard as well.

 

[Raijinken]

characters getting screwed over in smash (or any competitive video game ever created) is very very normal.

It shouldn't be, and when a simple solution is ignored, then it comes across as an extremely discouraging slap in the face for anyone who plays that character.

No matchup should be entirely invalidated, ever. It's not healthy for the metagame, as Metaknight so kindly showed us in Brawl, with his ability to invalidate effectively every single matchup in the game.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

What if there are counters? What if Robin can still win the match up due to being able to avoid down smash? Zero Suit Samus has 0-death'd people out of Down Smash in two games now... one of those characters (Fox) still wins the match up by a solid margin in Brawl.
What if there's a way to get out that we won't find out unless there's a reason to find out?

Okay
in tournament
Zero Suit Samus downsmashes you, footstools, you, lasers you and then throws out a kill move.
Banned?

What if ZSS does a second down smash? That still seems fair right? That's not even really any more damaging than a normal combo except it may be more efficient due to move staling negation. So the question is when is too much? OH so you cannot do a second down smash or a second footstool or a second laser? How is that fair to me when another character can achieve the same affect just by up tilting 8 times in a row?

Performing tilt combos and using a technique that renders an entire stock gone are two very different things. I believe "too much" is a term you would use when someone can completely shut down a character with hardly any effort at all. Ice Climbers were one thing- as they relied on it and required actual skill to be good. But this is something simple and easy to repeat.

It shouldn't be, and when a simple solution is ignored, then it comes across as an extremely discouraging slap in the face for anyone who plays that character.

No matchup should be entirely invalidated, ever. It's not healthy for the metagame, as Metaknight so kindly showed us in Brawl, with his ability to invalidate effectively every single matchup in the game.

I agree completely.

 

[Shaya]

Performing tilt combos and using a technique that renders an entire stock gone are two very different things. I believe "too much" is a term you would use when someone can completely shut down a character with hardly any effort at all. Ice Climbers were one thing- as they relied on it and required actual skill to be good. But this is something simple and easy to repeat.

It shouldn't be, and when a simple solution is ignored, then it comes across as an extremely discouraging slap in the face for anyone who plays that character.

No matchup should be entirely invalidated, ever. It's not healthy for the metagame, as Metaknight so kindly showed us in Brawl, with his ability to invalidate effectively every single matchup in the game.

So at this stage you're ignoring what I'm saying for the emotional/subjective factor and framing your replies only on nitpicking analogies rather than the point at hand...
Time issues, enforceability issues, bias issues. You have no answers to any.

What's hard? What's easy?
Ice Climbers are easy.

How does this invalidate the character in a specific match up? Can't you avoid down smash ?
Why should we make a specific rule to negate a character's strength in a match up/punishment? We should do the same for other things as well, because they're JUST AS EASY.

Hard/easy are not a fair argument.
Statistics are. Facts are. Things you have neither of.
You have nothing but an emotion telling you that your favourite character may not be as viable in this game as you would like them to be or would have a harder time in a match up in a way you haven't seen be successful in competitive play.

 

[LancerStaff]

Ideally, we shouldn't have any bans of this sort whatsoever. The game isn't perfectly balanced, and we shouldn't be trying to force an arbitrary balance on top of that. The terms "cheap" and "broken" are arbitrary. You agreed to play the game with these rules. Learn 'em or leave.

 

[Thinkaman]

Bans, like all rules by nature, must be discrete and enforceable. Banning an arbitrary sequence of actions, regardless of how effective or game breaking it is, is neither of those things.

It has nothing to do with how much baloney this may or may not be.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

I will address all of the issues you pointed out. Its only fair of me.

Time issues: While I won't deny that it will take a bit of time to commit to restricting a certain gameplay element such as infinites, there are usually many spectators in a competitive setting. Do you really think they'd just sit and watch as someone is infinitited in a competitive match? Are they just supposed to say nothing? It would be easy for them to provide evidence just by spectating that a certain person had used that technique. There's no need for recording replays under these circumstances. If a rule is set- people aren't going to perform it when there are observers.

Enforceability issues: While we can't control what happens online, we can control what happens in our tournaments with what I said above. This would encourage those who are competitive to rely less on infinite techniques online.

Bias issues: Well...for one, I'm not bias, as both ZSS and Robin aren't characters I care too much about. But I know that there are tons of people who do care a lot more about them. I'm speaking on their behalf.

 

[Zaprong]

So at this stage you're ignoring what I'm saying for the emotional/subjective factor and framing your replies only on nitpicking analogies rather than the point at hand...
Time issues, enforceability issues, bias issues. You have no answers to any.

What's hard? What's easy?
Ice Climbers are easy.

How does this invalidate the character in a specific match up? Can't you avoid down smash ?
Why should we make a specific rule to negate a character's strength in a match up/punishment? We should do the same for other things as well, because they're JUST AS EASY.

Hard/easy are not a fair argument.
Statistics are. Facts are. Things you have neither of.
You have nothing but an emotion telling you that your favourite character may not be as viable in this game as you would like them to be or would have a harder time in a match up in a way you haven't seen be successful in competitive play.

So you are assuming you must be Perfect avoiding an attack so you can attempt to play competitively while the opponent will just spam that attack to get an easy win? Seems fair. Nononono, it's not like people can slip some move and lose an entire stock just for it.

Come on.

Not to mention, there will be a lot of ZSS out there thanks for the E3 Invitational winner, many people will think she is good and thus will make Robin literally unusable.

 

[ミスティック Speed]

So you are assuming you must be Perfect avoiding an attack so you can attempt to play competitively while the opponent will just spam that attack to get an easy win? Seems fair. Nononono, it's not like people can slip some move and lose an entire stock just for it.

Come on.

Not to mention, there will be a lot of ZSS out there thanks for the E3 Invitational winner, many people will think she is good and thus will make Robin literally unusable.

*sigh* And I know a lot of people seriously don't want this. I hate thinking of a character being left to dust because of a simple thing like this.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

*sigh* And I know a lot of people seriously don't want this. I hate thinking of a character being left to dust because of a simple thing like this.

If Robin is susceptible to many things like this, then maybe so. But as it stands, one (possibly hard) counter will not "leave a character to dust". Robin players may just need to pick up another character on the side to counterpick for that matchup.

EDIT: Also as Shaya said, it may not even be a counter at all. Who knows, maybe Robin's keepaway moves might save him/her.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

What if there are counters? What if Robin can still win the match up due to being able to avoid down smash? Zero Suit Samus has 0-death'd people out of Down Smash in two games now... one of those characters (Fox) still wins the match up by a solid margin in Brawl (although people threw it in the "Impossible" pile for a very long time by virtue of something that didn't actually nullify the match up: actually all it did was make the match up POSSIBLE for her, because otherwise she wouldn't stand a chance at all against him)

This is veering off topic, but could you elaborate on the Brawl Fox/ZSS matchup? I'm rather out of touch with the meta.

 

[DJ Dong]

A lot of people in this thread make very valid points. And I'd like to say:

The mainstream rulesets have never banned infinites of any kind, beyond the stalling of them (previous games was 300%); this was to stop players from just timing you out with them.

If it doesn't get patched (why would it?) Backend server things are one thing [i.e. fix peach autobans] but gamewise is another.
Furthermore this has been heavily discussed all over, and no other infinites have been found yet. This "infinite" seems to only work on Robin and no other character, in this case, most definitely, we would not restrict it, it sucks for Robin but it's how the cookie crumbles.

This is using the tradition argument, which holds no grounds. "I don't like change"

I'm honestly not seeing an issue with for example, penalizing people by some standard. There were in fact tournaments in Brawl that banned the use of infinites. DDD's downthrow on Dong for example. They just pointed out the most specific and easiest specifics to say no to, and did it. It wouldn't be hard to do it for this, or other infinite combos we find.

We already ban plenty of things that take away the notion of "who's the best player" from the game. Why not this?

It's odd to discriminate and say "no item/stage/ledgegrab because it influences the outcome of a match, making it less dependant on the skill of players", but we wouldn't do this for a horrendous game exploit that is easy to do and acquires a stock point with no interaction at all from the opponent.

I also like how you even pointed out how there are in fact circumstances in which we do penalize unfair game exploits, but then you proceed to say "oh well robin is just a single character so who cares". That's utter bias.

 

[Shaya]

Fox is just a lot faster than ZSS and has no issues with killing. Fox loses match ups he gets grabbed or easily out of shield punished in, but ZSS' OoS options in Brawl are legitimately some of the worst, requiring power shields to have any potency. Down Smash needs to hit for her to have a sizable chance in landing a kill move on Fox before Fox just power shields any one of ZSS' bread and butter moves for a punish that can kill. Fox plays the match up with the fastest dash to shield in the game (allowing much easier power shields on her side b/down smash/etc) and has an 8 frame move that kills her at 80% that he has multiple set ups/punishment options into, a camping game with sh triple laser that outclasses ZSS' own camping game, and has no approach options on Fox. His speed/any OoS option from a successful reflector shine (and reflected armor pieces killing excessively early) also negates a lot of her first stock potency with armor pieces.

So you are assuming you must be Perfect avoiding an attack so you can attempt to play competitively while the opponent will just spam that attack to get an easy win? Seems fair. Nononono, it's not like people can slip some move and lose an entire stock just for it.

Come on.

Slipping up and losing an entire stock is normal to Smash. And will continue to be normal for Smash even if you perceive what other players/characters are doing requiring more skill. A 20+ frame start up move is not impossible to avoid. But yes, you're generally expected to play perfectly or near to win at top-level, and if Robin doesn't have the ability to punish a mindless spamming of a single move, they probably weren't too viable to begin with.

I also like how you even pointed out how there are in fact circumstances in which we do penalize unfair game exploits, but then you proceed to say "oh well robin is just a single character so who cares". That's utter bias.

Robin is just a single character is exactly why we shouldn't care. Robin is a single character in a 50 character game. Let's make a rule for every character to make them better in a way that a person deems unfair. You do not have an objective measures to argue whatsoever. There are going to be characters in this game likely worse than Robin, and you're going to justify a singular rule to buff him based off your distaste for a game mechanic?

And I'm very apt at hating status quo responses, but that's not the justification I'm giving at all. I go by statistics and the extent at which a competitive player is able to control their own fate in a game. I would consider both a form of facts. I would make subjective choices on facts that would be beneficial to the game and I would never deny that, it's preferable to never have to do such things though.

Every character that was dealt with an infinite or 0-death in brawl was better than Ganondorf. Significantly more viable than he was. If I were to remove an infinite on Ness to make him better, than why shouldn't we give Ganondorf a free Warlock Punch every time he... jabs you? Seems silly right? Just as silly as us banning an infinite on a single character from a single character in a game with 2400 other match ups to play is to me.

 

[Hylian]

Losing one match-up does not make a character unviable. Secondaries are common in tournament scenes for many games for this exact reason. It's still far to early to tell if ZSS even beats Robin that badly despite the infinite, but even if she is a hard counter to Robin it's not something that is bannable by any logical means. Enforcement at large tournaments would be incredibly hard and would come down to just having to trust one player over another if a dispute came up, as well as the arbitrary limiting of the combo itself as shaya has already pointed out. Tournaments do not cater rules to balance the game.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Zero Suit's infinite on Robin is the same one as was in Brawl that she had against ROB. I've only seen it performed in tournament a handful of times and we've known about it since 2009. The reason is that it's a very difficult infinite to do, both in execution terms and in terms of how practical it is to get into position. Even if you land dsmash you need to have been in position to follow up with a pivot->footstool. It's a very space-sensitive thing and borderline impractical.

I'm not saying that if it were easier, I'd want it banned. It's legal whether you like or not... realistically though you can avoid it pretty easily. It does not in any way "invalidate" Robin, a character who is ostensibly very good at spacing and staying at mid range anyway.

 

[Zaprong]

Slipping up and losing an entire stock is normal to Smash. And will continue to be normal for Smash even if you perceive what other players/characters are doing requiring more skill. A 20+ frame start up move is not impossible to avoid. But yes, you're generally expected to play perfectly or near to win at top-level, and if Robin doesn't have the ability to punish a mindless spamming of a single move, they probably weren't too viable to begin with.

You know what I'm talking about, it's not the same slipping up and receive some percentage damage from 0% than losing an entire stock from 0%. This would be justified if it did a fixed damage like Mario's 0-67 combo, but you just can spam this indefinitely until you kill

Besides, I didn't mean mindlessly using Down Smash, I meant people aiming to use Down Smash a lot more often to win.

 

[Raijinken]

Hard/easy are not a fair argument.
Statistics are. Facts are. Things you have neither of.

It is a fact that the game should be fair. An infinite of any sort, regardless of character, isn't. Part of why I don't feel bad about the Ice Climbers cut is that in both games they were only useful for an infinite.

Robin is a single character in a 50 character game. Let's make a rule for every character to make them better in a way that a person deems unfair. You do not have an objective measures to argue whatsoever.

He is (currently) the one character in the game susceptible to an infinite. That is an objective (if, like all science, possible to prove wrong with future experimentation) measure. Which you counter with what seems to be a shaky "We don't ban things like that over a single character", which, maybe you haven't, but I've played in a few, and spectated a number of tournaments that banned infinites like those mentioned above. Perhaps absolutely none of those followed the "Standard Smashboards Tournament Rules", I wouldn't have known at the time. But banning infinites is something that is done, and for good reason.

It does not in any way "invalidate" Robin, a character who is ostensibly very good at spacing and staying at mid range anyway.

Zero Suit Samus has also shown to be extremely effective at closing that gap. I wonder which one will prove more powerful?

You know what I'm talking about, it's not the same slipping up and receive some percentage damage from 0% than losing an entire stock from 0%. This would be justified if it did a fixed damage like Mario's 0-67 combo, but you just can spam this indefinitely until you kill

Besides, I didn't mean mindlessly using Down Smash, I meant people aiming to use Down Smash a lot more often to win.

Furthermore, this one doesn't significantly move your victim like, for instance, DDD's chaingrab. There is nothing to force this to end except Zamus's patience and when she decides to Fsmash.

 

[Zaprong]

Honestly, starting to see things like this makes me worry about Robin, a lot more people will definitely use her, and that is not a bad thing, the bad thing is that she will make Robin not appear at all competitively because of the infinite.

Also, for something Sakurai removed chain grabs....

 

[Raijinken]

Also, for something Sakurai removed chain grabs....

Once people find a way to burn off the 1s regrab timer, it'll just become chaingrabs with moves in between.

And I wouldn't quite say she'd make Robin not appear at all. He'd still appear, he just wouldn't win if there's a Zamus of decent skill that can jump a fireball and punish his endlag with a stun.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I think it's hilarious that people are acting like ZSS changed a lot from Brawl to begin with

Here's a list of positive changes:

1. grab is less laggy and faster
2. jab completes on every character
3. fsmash,
4. up-b is now a command jump and kill move
5. zair was added that covers part of the function of the old up-b (during recovery)
6. down b now buries on footstool (?) and the kick bounces off shields, so a little safer but not much (can still usmash oos)

Everything else is lateral or nerfed

1. Dtilt is worse, less damage, ****ty angle, slower
2. Dsmash is 8% damage rather than 11% and can only be followed with ground moves normally and you can't dsmash twice and follow up... compared to the punish combo from brawl (dssmash dsmash fair -- 37%), zss' punishes on dsmash were nerfed severely.
3. Dsmash also is not safe on shield anymore, has less range, doesn't move her forward, etc.
4. bair is slower, does less damage, doesn't kill, isn't as safe on shield
5. fair does less damage (11% instead of 17%) and does not kill
6. uair is significantly slower and can't kill but can combo to up-b i guess
7. plasma whip does less damage and can't kill even at very high percents
8. jab is 1-2 frames slower (from 1 to 2 or 3)
9. grab has less range
10. dash attack looks pretty but it sucks. it's super punishable on block and can no longer be combo'd out of, compared to brawl dash attack that could be combo'd into anything (including itself)
11. all throws do less damage

ZSS now does way way less damage, overall slower, has like 5 fewer kill moves, is less scary on the punish, and is even worse on shield. In exchange she got some new gimmicks, a zair, and a jab that doesn't frame trap herself.

ZSS looks great because all the top tiers from brawl were neutered mercilessly. She is still the same gimmicky unsafe character she always was, only she's worse, and MK and Pikachu can't nair her on the ledge for free.

All these stupid combos people are posting were possible (and yes, they were true combos) in Brawl too.

 

[Shaya]

It is a fact that the game should be fair. An infinite of any sort, regardless of character, isn't. Part of why I don't feel bad about the Ice Climbers cut is that in both games they were only useful for an infinite.


He is (currently) the one character in the game susceptible to an infinite. That is an objective (if, like all science, possible to prove wrong with future experimentation) measure.

No game is fair and ever will be. We hope it will be, but it will not. I'm pretty glad about ICs being cut in this game too, competitively and design wise I despise them.

It's objective to say that Robin is (currently) the only character in the game susceptible to an infinite? Okay. Are you then saying it's objective to change a single thing about a single character in a way that benefits one character but hurts another as per the game is implemented?

which, maybe you haven't, but I've played in a few, and spectated a number of tournaments that banned infinites like those mentioned above. Perhaps absolutely none of those followed the "Standard Smashboards Tournament Rules", I wouldn't have known at the time. But banning infinites is something that is done, and for good reason.

Spectated what tournaments that have banned infinites? Because this isn't a smashboards tournament rules standard at all. This is actually how every competitive game is dealt with. I've run many many many tournaments, and I banned infinites, because I used to be a book definition scrub in my early days as well, not understanding the severity of the impact of arbitrary decisions and how I cannot justify one over another by any fair logic. If you don't want to play Super Smash Bros competitively, then you can play it with your friends however you like. But how the game does something is always the standard unless it is absolutely detrimental not to. 1/2401 match ups are affected by this.

Oh and I've still yet to ever use standard smashboard tournament rules.

I think it's hilarious that people are acting like ZSS changed a lot from Brawl to begin with

Here's a list of positive changes:

1. grab is less laggy and faster
2. jab completes on every character
3. fsmash,
4. up-b is now a command jump and kill move
5. zair was added that covers part of the function of the old up-b (during recovery)
6. down b now buries on footstool (?) and the kick bounces off shields, so a little safer but not much (can still usmash oos)

Everything else is lateral or nerfed

1. Dtilt is worse, less damage, ****ty angle, slower
2. Dsmash is 8% damage rather than 11% and can only be followed with ground moves normally and you can't dsmash twice and follow up... compared to the punish combo from brawl (dssmash dsmash fair -- 37%), zss' punishes on dsmash were nerfed severely.
3. Dsmash also is not safe on shield anymore, has less range, doesn't move her forward, etc.
4. bair is slower, does less damage, doesn't kill, isn't as safe on shield
5. fair does less damage (11% instead of 17%) and does not kill
6. uair is significantly slower and can't kill but can combo to up-b i guess
7. plasma whip does less damage and can't kill even at very high percents
8. jab is 1-2 frames slower (from 1 to 2 or 3)
9. grab has less range
10. dash attack looks pretty but it sucks. it's super punishable on block and can no longer be combo'd out of, compared to brawl dash attack that could be combo'd into anything (including itself)
11. all throws do less damage

ZSS now does way way less damage, overall slower, has like 5 fewer kill moves, is less scary on the punish, and is even worse on shield. In exchange she got some new gimmicks, a zair, and a jab that doesn't frame trap herself.

ZSS looks great because all the top tiers from brawl were neutered mercilessly. She is still the same gimmicky unsafe character she always was, only she's worse, and MK and Pikachu can't nair her on the ledge for free.

All these stupid combos people are posting were possible (and yes, they were true combos) in Brawl too.

People you are replying to are in the mindset that because ZSS is popular/good there is even more reason as to why this needs to be banned...

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

People you are replying to are in the mindset that because ZSS is popular/good there is even more reason as to why this needs to be banned...

That's the thing! She's not popular, and once people figure out that she isn't even very good, she'll be less popular.

 

[Shaya]

That's the thing! She's not popular, and once people figure out that she isn't even very good, she'll be less popular.

You're right, she's awful. Without this infinite her only chance of any form of viability by being a niche counterpick to Robin has been expunged forever on day 1 of the game before it even ever came up in a tournament setting.

Her mobility options are still bonkers though, I wish we could just decide she couldn't use those instead, that would make 48 other characters infinitely happier, that's FORTY-EIGHT TIMES more viability increases/fun increases than us killing this Robin glitch.

 

[slimjim]

As a Robin main forever and always, be he/she even Ganon tier...I cannot vouch in favor of banning this. Granted, I was -_- when I saw it, but it's just statistically a non-issue. In order for this technique to be relevant, there are several things that must occur:

0) The infinite must prove to be relatively easy to do consistently.
1) They must be able to perform the technique at all, let alone while nervous in a tourney match.
2) They must main ZSS (a pocket zss should only win consistently if the matchup is terrible even without the infinite, or if that zss-picking player is far better in the first place).
3) You must play Robin.
4) They must be spaced properly to perform the technique repeatedly.
5) The matchup must develop in such a fashion that zss' d-smash has a reliable setup.
6) Ultimately, the physics of the game (which we know little about right now) must make escape from the infinite truly impossible, even with a c-stick.

Answer: Have counterpick options (you'll need them anyway for Robin's bad matchups). Alternatively, ban stalling with this move past 300% like we've seen in the past because timing somebody out with an infinite is a different story. This last part is increasingly relevant if we stick with a 2-stock, 5:00 tourney format.

 

[Senario]

Lol this is the type of thing that shouldnt exist. Ice climbers in melee had wobbling but that required rhythm and a descync setup into a punish. Plus Nana is brain dead so killing her was super easy. What is most important is that the technique did not F tier anybody simply because it could be done to them.

This is much different as it invalidates a character and only one character. It reminds me of infinites with marth on ness and lucas in brawl. There is no reason to invalidate a specific character because that specific character gets locked in an infinite so I would think this needs to be patched.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

It seems to me that, although this exists it's a little premature to try and make any kind of judgement on it. If in a few months we notice that ZSS always wins against Robin because of this then maybe we can discuss implementing a rule, but until then there's no reason to think it's going to be a huge problem.

If the developers have taken such lengths to ensure no infinite combos exist, it's not out of the realm of possibility that it might get patched out. Right now this seems like an unnecessary discussion, and definitely not something people should be getting worked up about.

 

[Hylian]

If in a few months we notice that ZSS always wins against Robin because of this then maybe we can discuss implementing a rule

There is no need. Even if it's the worst match-up in the game it won't be banned. It is not our job to balance the game, we are not the games developers. Banning the infinite not only helps Robin, but nerfs ZSS and is in no way more fair to either player from a logical standpoint. Bad match-ups exist in pretty much every fighting game, and rules are NOT made to balance them for very good reason. Robin players may need to think about having a secondary against ZSS, just as IC's need to have a secondary against peach in melee, or Balrog players need to have a secondary against Hakan, or any other countless counter match-ups in various fighting games.

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

Zero Suit's infinite on Robin is the same one as was in Brawl that she had against ROB. I've only seen it performed in tournament a handful of times and we've known about it since 2009. The reason is that it's a very difficult infinite to do, both in execution terms and in terms of how practical it is to get into position. Even if you land dsmash you need to have been in position to follow up with a pivot->footstool. It's a very space-sensitive thing and borderline impractical.

Basically this. ROB suffered the same fate back then but no one really batted an eye. Long as it isn't the entire roster these kind of things go unnoticed. Still saw ROB players beating ZSS ones because they could properly out space the set up. The spacing and timing of this is strict so I don't see it being a big deal. Honestly I doubt it'll end up being banned for the simple reason "It was already a thing in Brawl"

 

[SmashWolf]

If a single glitch makes a character the ultimate counterpick to any character for that reason only, then BAN it. Best be Nintendo themselves patch it out, seeing how it clearly wasn't their intention.

Hard/easy are not a fair argument.
Statistics are. Facts are. Things you have neither of.

Yes, easyness matters. If this was borderline impossible to do in an actual match, it wouldn't affect anything. If it was the easiest thing to do, Robins would be screwed everytime purely because of a SINGLE character counterpick rather than actual player skill. These are facts. As a community, we should always strive for fair conditions to each player as much as possible. Entire stages get banned because some characters are more efficient on them. Banning abuse of a simple technique that would otherwise ruin the entire point of a character, AKA Robin in this case, is NOT a big deal in that regard even remotely.

Mind you, I'm not harping on this SPECIFIC infinite for the time being as I haven't had a chance to fight it in person yet, but I'm pointing out your contradictory "logic" here. If you're willing to ban stages for lesser reasons, something this incredibly powerfull that could potentially outsource an entire otherwise viable character can NOT be ignored.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

There is no need. Even if it's the worst match-up in the game it won't be banned. It is not our job to balance the game, we are not the games developers. Banning the infinite not only helps Robin, but nerfs ZSS and is in no way more fair to either player from a logical standpoint. Bad match-ups exist in pretty much every fighting game, and rules are NOT made to balance them for very good reason. Robin players may need to think about having a secondary against ZSS, just as IC's need to have a secondary against peach in melee, or Balrog players need to have a secondary against Hakan, or any other countless counter match-ups in various fighting games.

How would you respond to a hypothetical scenario where, through some glitch, whenever a player using Fox against Ganondorf could always be guaranteed victory by pressing B at the start of a match?

I'm not saying it necessarily equates, I'm just interested to know where you draw the line in matters of exploitable game elements.

 

[infomon]

How would you respond to a hypothetical scenario where, through some glitch, whenever a player using Fox against Ganondorf could always be guaranteed victory by pressing B at the start of a match?

I'll try!

This sounds like a glitch that prevents the competition. It is discrete and enforceable to ban: banned.

If alternatively, Fox's shine insta-KO'd Ganondorf on contact: no ban. Never pick Ganon against a Fox. Sucks, but that's the game. A valid competition would occur between those players, even if it's a really stupid one.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Hoser]

There's no reason to ban this. Casuals will complain about it, but casuals aren't what make up competitive tournaments.

Plus, people will calm down once Robin players find a 0-death combo against ZSS. Or when more character specific combos/infinites happen.

Not to mention, there's 49 freaken characters in the game. Each character is bound to have at least one bad matchup. I'm planning to main Robin, and I'm not worried about this infinite. I don't think it's even going to be easy to do.

Also, one character being able to dominate one other character doesn't invalidate the dominated character. It just makes that one matchup harder. Robin will still be a top contender.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Once people find a way to burn off the 1s regrab timer, it'll just become chaingrabs with moves in between

...you do realize there's this thing called "tick throws" in traditional fighters, right? Basically the same premise, throwing in a few meaty attacks and going for a throw somewhere between. Should we start banning those?

And I wouldn't quite say she'd make Robin not appear at all. He'd still appear, he just wouldn't win if there's a Zamus of decent skill that can jump a fireball and punish his endlag with a stun.

The onus is on the Robin to not get caught in the infinite. This is done by having better spacing/footsies, and general better overall situational awareness. It boils down to the player, not the game itself.

Smooth Criminal