Infinite Grabs

[infiniteV115]

So what about the banana infinite that ZSS has on Diddy? Should that be banned too? It's a 0-death, easy to set up, easy to complete and you can do it without the risk of tripping (you can't trip when walking...right?)

 

[popsofctown]

Correct, you can't trip while walking.

 

[Arcansi]

You can't flip the analogy like that because it doesn't make sense the way you're using it. Someone being stuck in an infinite doesn't limit what player input can be made. Playing against a character that has an infinite on your character doesn't effect what your character can do. However, being told you can't do a thing that is inherent to your character is the same as saying you can't use card x in your specific deck in this matchup because it's an infinite but you can use that card same card in a different match because it doesn't result in an infinite. The analogy was dumb to begin with, but it isn't as confusing and awkward as you're making it.

1. Yes it limits what you can do, because you can do nothing if you're stuck in an infinite.

2. It doesn't affect what your character can do if your dumb. You don't see good players playing the way they do against everyone else against IC's, now do you?

3. Actually, it's like banning a card in the infinite. The infinite only works against certain decks, so you ban the part that makes it work against those decks and you're fine.

You're correct about something for once, however nobody made this argument.

[paragraph] I am the 99%...

Of course....

The dsmash after the end of the grab release chain is what does like almost all of the damage LMAO. Lucas is bad, we don't buff characters in this game, bad charas stay bad, good chars stay good.

Which is why LGL & MK being banned don't buff or nerf anyone, right?

Or our choice of amount of stocks & timer?

I am not saying anything about giving characters powers. I am stating that every match-up having its own specific set of rules is dumb. Besides, you do realize that while the 99% helped in getting MK banned, it is only enforced by the 1%. I have been to 2 tournaments that banned MK. They both had terrible turnouts, and I don't see why people even assume that they would ever ban any kind of infinite. It's not infinite, it's just annoying.

You aren't...saying anything.

For the one thing you do say: It doesn't need to be a true infinite to make the matchup stupid broken.

So what about the banana infinite that ZSS has on Diddy? Should that be banned too? It's a 0-death, easy to set up, easy to complete and you can do it without the risk of tripping (you can't trip when walking...right?)

Yeah, because you would ban diddies infinites on everyone and everyone's infinites on diddy, it would even out.

 

[Lukingordex]

Except that in real life he WOULDN'T be high enough to get killed. I already outlined this in my prior post.
1) 2 different releases, one farther than the other. It appears to be possible to force one over the other of these. In addition to my personal experience where they almost always seemed to get the farther release, here's a set of FOW vs a Marth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y38ZZSczUaM Note how he releases next to Marth once. Other than that it's a far release meaning Marth would be forced to move further than a close release (ignoring the fact that Marth messed up). To use your video as an example look at the distance Marth is forced to move from ~:28 to ~:40 compared to the distances immediate following that point. It's a LOT longer meaning a LOT less damage.

2) The CPU doesn't escape grabs as quickly as possible. Going the entire length of FD, Ness should only take ~25-30 damage from pummels starting at 0%. Not 200 or whatever happened in the video you provided.

So no, Marth won't necessarily put on enough damage to kill you from a grab. Going across the entire distance of FD, Marth would have to get the initial grab at something around 50% or so to kill Ness (well, I guess ~40% because Marth can GR-> spike ness).

Your argument is based on the idea that situations like what occurred in your video can happen consistently, and they can't for the above 2 reasons. Your argument is flawed. The situation doesn't hold up in regards to your proposed definition of what is banworthy. If you argue that it still does, ban Marth's CG-> spike on MK. Oh and ban Sheik's GR CG-> tipper DACUS on MK too. Might as well ban Marth's tipper fsmash out of grab release on Wario as well. They all start killing around the same %.

Edit- I'm done arguing about this topic lol. It won't change the ruleset and isn't a good use of my time.

I don´t agree with grab>grab>grab>grab>grab>etc

Grab>spike or Grab>another thing is different.

 

[The Ben]

1. Yes it limits what you can do, because you can do nothing if you're stuck in an infinite.

2. It doesn't affect what your character can do if your dumb. You don't see good players playing the way they do against everyone else against IC's, now do you?

3. Actually, it's like banning a card in the infinite. The infinite only works against certain decks, so you ban the part that makes it work against those decks and you're fine.

1. No it doesn't. You have complete control of your character leading up to that infinite. Them being able to infinite you isn't a thing until you put yourself in that position.

2. I agree, that's my point. If someone is playing sub optimally they deserve to get punished for it. It isn't like the game starts and one player inevitably gets caught. That just isn't how the game works.

3. Yes, but imagine the implications of that during a tournament. I know nothing about Yu-gi-oh so I'll be making cards up as I go along. We'll say there is a card that brings a creature back from the graveyard (I assume YGO has that), a creature that brings an ability back when it comes into play, and a thing that sacrifices a thing to do ability X (Sorry for using so much Magic terminology) effectively giving you infinite of abilty X. At the start of the tournament you register your deck. A combo deck, awesome. Now let's say there are two other types of deck, one that has an answer to it and one that doesn't. The judge would need to arbitrarily decide you can't play one of those cards in the match up where they can't answer it without actually prohibiting you from doing the same combo in the other match. That rule is dumb and arbitrary. Obviously the reason you'd choose to play such a combo deck is because it is a counter to the deck with no answer. Not to mention you'd almost need a judge to watch each and every match simply to keep straight all of every interaction and card in each deck at all times.Also, terrible clunky and bloated analogy is terrible. We should probably either find another analogy or just not use one.

In short, you're advocating making rules to arbitrarily effect some match ups for no other reason than disliking how some characters interact with others.

It doesn't need to be a true infinite to make the matchup stupid broken.

You haven't even proven that true infinites are broken.

 

[Lukingordex]

OMG comparing Yu-gi-oh rules with brawl rules...

You haven´t even proven that Yu-gi-oh rules can be compared with brawl rules

 

[Arcansi]

1. No it doesn't. You have complete control of your character leading up to that infinite. Them being able to infinite you isn't a thing until you put yourself in that position.

You said this. 'Someone being stuck in an infinite doesn't limit what player input can be made.'

And now your going off of it. Stick to your point please.

2. I agree, that's my point. If someone is playing sub optimally they deserve to get punished for it. It isn't like the game starts and one player inevitably gets caught. That just isn't how the game works.

The thing is Marth can just derp around and still win, and that's the major problem.

3. Yes, but imagine the implications of that during a tournament. I know nothing about Yu-gi-oh so I'll be making cards up as I go along. We'll say there is a card that brings a creature back from the graveyard (I assume YGO has that), a creature that brings an ability back when it comes into play, and a thing that sacrifices a thing to do ability X (Sorry for using so much Magic terminology) effectively giving you infinite of abilty X. At the start of the tournament you register your deck. A combo deck, awesome. Now let's say there are two other types of deck, one that has an answer to it and one that doesn't. The judge would need to arbitrarily decide you can't play one of those cards in the match up where they can't answer it without actually prohibiting you from doing the same combo in the other match. That rule is dumb and arbitrary. Obviously the reason you'd choose to play such a combo deck is because it is a counter to the deck with no answer. Not to mention you'd almost need a judge to watch each and every match simply to keep straight all of every interaction and card in each deck at all times.Also, terrible clunky and bloated analogy is terrible. We should probably either find another analogy or just not use one.

In short, you're advocating making rules to arbitrarily effect some match ups for no other reason than disliking how some characters interact with others.

I'm going to drop the analogy here and go on what you said afterward.

You mean I'm advocating things that are directly related to and almost just like banning MK or the LGL or the # of stocks and length of timer in the way they change the game?

You haven't even proven that true infinites are broken.

I assume too much sometimes.

Not only does it take away a lot of competitiveness from our game, it skews the matchup completely in 99% of the matchups it exists in.

This is a very bad thing.

 

[Ghostbone]

Because of the pummel, am I right ? If the cg starts at >50%, the other characters are indeed infinited. But you're right in a way, it should be 'no matter how high the %' instead of 'no matter the %'.

Because of the pummel, yes, and you can escape well past 50% with good mashing. (up to around 120% at least, look up Kprime mashing)

 

[T0MMY]

Infinite, or be infinited.
That is the law in the Competitive Arena.

 

[Lukingordex]

I already don´t know if I agree or not with infinites now,it is... strange

 

[Arcansi]

It seems...people cannot respond to my points.

In a formal debate I would win here.

 

[BlueberrySyrup]

It's a shame nobody views points, they just go with what's there, they don't care if there's infinites, they just want the cheap game Brawl is.

Nobody wants to work together to fix something, instead they just attack you and tell you how stupid it is to argue about something that clearly ruins the matchup.

 

[-LzR-]

This game is terribly infested with people wanting to ban infinites. There is a difference between infinite stalling like IDC or planking or some freeze glitcthes when compared to something like a toptier character being able to grabrelease 2 bad character for some extra damage. I guess it's totally fair for Charizard to do it because he sucks, right?

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I think the reason why people aren't addressing your concerns about these infinites is because there is a bunch of people ignoring three fact that there are people contesting that these are even infinites. Why would they listen to your concerns if you ignore theirs? I think king ddd's infinite on dk is what you should talk about if you want to keep arguing this. As to the best of my knowledge is in fact a true standing infinite.

 

[Arcansi]

This game is terribly infested with people wanting to ban infinites. There is a difference between infinite stalling like IDC or planking or some freeze glitcthes when compared to something like a toptier character being able to grabrelease 2 bad character for some extra damage. I guess it's totally fair for Charizard to do it because he sucks, right?

I'm for removing all infinites, you silly guy.

I think the reason why people aren't addressing your concerns about these infinites is because there is a bunch of people ignoring three fact that there are people contesting that these are even infinites. Why would they listen to your concerns if you ignore theirs? I think king ddd's infinite on dk is what you should talk about if you want to keep arguing this. As to the best of my knowledge is in fact a true standing infinite.

The only one I remember reading said it doesn't matter if it's an infinite, just that being what we call it, having no better name.

What I say has no difference wether we talk about true infinites or untrue infinites.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

Actually I DO think it matters that it's not an infinite. I was saying that Blueberrysyrup doesn't think it matters, because he gets beat down by it anyway (because he doesn't know how to mash it properly). This whole thread has been about him wanting to ban an "infinite" that isn't infinite, and I find that to be ridiculous.

 

[-LzR-]

Yeah it's like banning Dededes infinite on Mario, Luigi and Samus. That would be extremely dumb.

 

[BlueberrySyrup]

Okay, I find it ridiculous for people to ban Metaknight because they think he's unbeatable, when he is infact beatable.

 

[Skadorski]

Okay, I find it ridiculous for people to ban Infinite grabs because people think they're unbeatable, when they are infact beatable.

What I read.

 

[Lukingordex]

Meta Knight is not banned anymore,according to this:

http://www.smashboards.com/misc.php?do=news&id=321220

 

[The Ben]

Meta Knight was never banned according to a lot of TOs.

 

[Lukingordex]

If Meta Knight is not banned anymore,I don´t care for the infinite getting banned or not.

MK players will return and kill Marth players again.

 

[-LzR-]

So just because the URC got disbanded nothing they did matters anymore? Then how the hell did we have recommended rulesets before URC? >_>

 

[NickRiddle]

So just because the URC got disbanded nothing they did matters anymore? Then how the hell did we have recommended rulesets before URC? >_>

Nobody listened to them?

 

[Arcansi]

Actually I DO think it matters that it's not an infinite. I was saying that Blueberrysyrup doesn't think it matters, because he gets beat down by it anyway (because he doesn't know how to mash it properly). This whole thread has been about him wanting to ban an "infinite" that isn't infinite, and I find that to be ridiculous.

Except my contributions, which have been (as far as I can tell) seperate from that.

Yeah it's like banning Dededes infinite on Mario, Luigi and Samus. That would be extremely dumb.

Why?

Wouldn't it make our game more balanced?

 

[-LzR-]

Why?

Wouldn't it make our game more balanced?

No, because it only works on people who suck.

 

[Arcansi]

No, because it only works on people who suck.

Oh, ok.

:fluttershy:

 

[BlueberrySyrup]

LOL ^

So basically if you get grabbed once you suck, which it's pretty impossible to never get grabbed.

Thanks for enlightening me.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

LOL ^

So basically if you get grabbed once you suck, which it's pretty impossible to never get grabbed.

Thanks for enlightening me.

That's not what he meant. He means that good players can mash out.

 

[NickRiddle]

In case you guys haven't noticed, this thread has become people arguing over non-infinites recently, then being condescending when they are disagreed with.

 

[Dr. R.O.Botnik]

it's pretty impossible to never get grabbed.

It's called "not being near the opponent on the ground", try it some time.

 

[Strong Badam]

Justifying banning something for the sake of balance is absurd, because I can say "If we banned the top half of the roster, the game would be more balanced" and it'd be true. Balancing the game is not the job of the Tournament Organizer, it's the job of the game designer, and if a game is not balanced enough for you as is it's a pretty good clue you should be looking for a different game to play. At the same time, there is an overwhelming majority of people that have no problem with infinites and play Brawl competitively just fine, and they only come up in the case of ICs really.

 

[Arcansi]

It's called "not being near the opponent on the ground", try it some time.

Everybody's gotta land sometime. I mean, unless something else is making the IC's top tier.

Justifying banning something for the sake of balance is absurd, because I can say "If we banned the top half of the roster, the game would be more balanced" and it'd be true. Balancing the game is not the job of the Tournament Organizer, it's the job of the game designer, and if a game is not balanced enough for you as is it's a pretty good clue you should be looking for a different game to play. At the same time, there is an overwhelming majority of people that have no problem with infinites and play Brawl competitively just fine, and they only come up in the case of ICs really.

1. I could also say 'we gain game depth', but it's harder to understand. When I justify something by balance, I also make sure game depth goes up, so in the end we don't lose anything.

2. Incorrect, we balance our game already. (See, banning things!)

3. Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

In case you guys haven't noticed, this thread has become people arguing over non-infinites recently, then being condescending when they are disagreed with.

To be fair, the OP's main example he/she wants gone is not a Standing Infinite, who he/she is arguing for getting rid of. Thus, we cannot do much until he/she either changes what he wants gone, or concedes he made a mistake.

I'm fine with moving on. There's just no way to.

 

[Arcansi]

To be fair, the OP's main example he/she wants gone is not a Standing Infinite, who he/she is arguing for getting rid of. Thus, we cannot do much until he/she either changes what he wants gone, or concedes he made a mistake.

I'm fine with moving on. There's just no way to.

You could ignore that triviality and continue with the topic at hand -_-.

 

[Esotera]

The GR on Lucas is also possible with MK and pika, however they aren't infinites, they just push us to the end of the stage, similiar to D3's dthrow. I don't think these things should be banned, it's just frustrating that Sakurai decided to give these guys 10 extra frames of release animation for apparently know reason. Also, many other characters have true combos out of GR that **** us (wario, bowser, zss). Also, if you play lucas or ness, you can be grabbed out of the air. Lucas can get grabbed out of his low priority aerial moves very easily. I just wish they wouldn't have put it in the game, because it's downright silly to have these infinites/true combos on us that so many of the cast can take advantage of. But it shouldn't be banned.

 

[The Nameless Wanderer]

Ya know, the 2 months this thread has been open, nothing really happened.

It's sort of sad.

 

[zmx]

Ya know, the 2 months this thread has been open, nothing really happened.

It's sort of sad.

What were you expecting to happen? The URC has been disbanded. There's no such thing as an official unified ruleset. Only general rules some recently borrowed from Japan that most TOs will agree on.

 

[C.J.]

We don't ban things to gain game depth either. We ban things the detrimentally detract from it.

 

[Dre89]

I'm confused, why are people for things like standing infinites, but then enforce a LGL?

Surely D3's standing infinites on DK and Bowser are at least equally OP as whatever MK can do on stages like Brinstar without any restrictions.

Also, if D3 could standing infinite the entire cast, the infinite would probably get banned. I don't see why it should be legal simply because it only works on a couple of characters.