Infinite Grabs

[The Ben]

The things that giver favorable match ups are inherent in character design. By saying you'd rather play a game with no skewed match ups you're saying you'd rather play a game that didn't have the character design of Smash.

 

[Lukingordex]

I know that,is not possible to get a fighting game with characters who all has even match ups.

But thats not related to anything about banning infinites.

 

[The Ben]

Yes it is. Those infinites are part of the characters (intentional or not).

 

[Arcansi]

I'm not sure if they're good, but they're just a natural part of the game. Different characters have different abilities so logically they won't all be good at doing the exact the same thing. The only way to create a game with 0 skewed matchups is to create a game with no variables other than player input. To remove the thing that creates skewed matchups would require everyone to play the same character. Essentially, if you don't like variation go play Chess.

What you're saying is true, but you aren't addressing my second point, the main one.

The game isn't going to go anywhere NEAR the extreme of essentially 'no matchups'.

It will just go more towards 'balanced' matchups.

Well, if one character's infinite was removed, logically, we'd have to remove other similar ones. This would just end up skewing other matchups that may have otherwise been relatively even. It would have a rather drastic effect on the metagame as a whole, without actually solving anything. When you consider how often this particular "infinite" actually presents a problem, it's not really worth trying to "fix". Good players know what their character's weaknesses are, and they either accept them or avoid them.

1. I did a chart on this, it supports overall character balance to remove all infinites unless the average effect of removing them is around +3 (so it goes from 50/50 to 80/20) on matchups where it is removed.

 

[The Ben]

Point number 2 is almost point number 1 restated. The things that make the match ups skewed are the things that make up the game. The game elements skew what actions can be taken when and how, within a set of perimeters. What you're asking is if we should limit what things do in the perimeters further than the programmer has already limited them and if that would yield better results. The best answer I can give to that is maybe but probably not. I think there is a level of deliberate flashiness that wouldn't be possible with a more balanced roster and ultimately what gives a game lasting power is community growth. Perhaps you could create a game a few tournament goers would largely prefer but has so little appeal to newcomers that it doesn't matter. Though that seems to be one of the issues the Smash community struggles with the most.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

1. I did a chart on this, it supports overall character balance to remove all infinites unless the average effect of removing them is around +3 (so it goes from 50/50 to 80/20) on matchups where it is removed.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You saying that we should only remove infinites from MUs where the infinite in question causes an imbalance in the overall MU? Cuz that sounds like a complete nightmare to regulate, since different people tend to have varying opinions on MUs. It would also literally be the most complicated rule ever made. Good chars would get arbitrary nerfs just cuz they happen to be facing a low tier, and bad chars get arbitrary buffs just because they are bad. All just to make more MUs closer to 50/50.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[Arcansi]

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You saying that we should only remove infinites from MUs where the infinite in question causes an imbalance in the overall MU? Cuz that sounds like a complete nightmare to regulate, since different people tend to have varying opinions on MUs. It would also literally be the most complicated rule ever made. Good chars would get arbitrary nerfs just cuz they happen to be facing a low tier, and bad chars get arbitrary buffs just because they are bad. All just to make more MUs closer to 50/50.

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

Yeah, you are.

I'm saying removing Infinites will balance the game in all situations save where the average matchup change caused by removing them is +3 (50/50 to 80/20) or higher.

Point number 2 is almost point number 1 restated. The things that make the match ups skewed are the things that make up the game. The game elements skew what actions can be taken when and how, within a set of perimeters. What you're asking is if we should limit what things do in the perimeters further than the programmer has already limited them and if that would yield better results. The best answer I can give to that is maybe but probably not. I think there is a level of deliberate flashiness that wouldn't be possible with a more balanced roster and ultimately what gives a game lasting power is community growth. Perhaps you could create a game a few tournament goers would largely prefer but has so little appeal to newcomers that it doesn't matter. Though that seems to be one of the issues the Smash community struggles with the most.

So what you're saying is, 'we could improve games, but it might make smash have a problem it already does'. Seems like there's no drawback.

Also, do you really think Marth infiniting Lucas is flashy? How about Yoshi on Wario?

Also, are you saying you can't tell wether removing only elements that make matchups 70//30 or 80//20 or worse, could possibly be bad?

 

[The Ben]

But at that point you're also making a rule to fix specific match ups on purpose. You're making a rule out of nothing more than character bias. It seems wrong to arbitrarily decide some characters should have better match ups with others.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

So... removing all infinites balances the game, except for when it doesn't?

..... I'm confused.

 

[Arcansi]

But at that point you're also making a rule to fix specific match ups on purpose. You're making a rule out of nothing more than character bias. It seems wrong to arbitrarily decide some characters should have better match ups with others.

It's not arbitrary, it's in the ideals of a balanced game for everyone, no matter which character they choose.

Is this a bad thing?

So... removing all infinites balances the game, except for when it doesn't?

..... I'm confused.

Everything does X, except when it doesn't. So yes.

However, the conditions for it not balancing the game are that the average change caused by infinites is +3. This is quite near impossible.

If you can't understand the above all I can show you is word definitions at this point.

 

[The Ben]

It's not arbitrary, it's in the ideals of a balanced game for everyone, no matter which character they choose.

Is this a bad thing?

Combined with this...

Everything does X, except when it doesn't. So yes.

in the same post. What? You're saying making a game altering change that shifts the balance radically is good because it rebalances the game except for when it doesn't. On the plus side it rebalances it more than it doesn't. You still haven't explained why match ups have to be close.

 

[Arcansi]

Combined with this...

in the same post. What? You're saying making a game altering change that shifts the balance radically is good because it rebalances the game except for when it doesn't. On the plus side it rebalances it more than it doesn't. You still haven't explained why match ups have to be close.

1. The only plausibility (looking at the game as a whole) of it not balancing our game is in an alternate reality. -_-

2. Because a game of all 90-10 matchups is called Rock Paper Scissors.

 

[The Ben]

No? Rock Paper Scissors is 33/33/33 all the time.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

2. Because a game of all 90-10 matchups is called Rock Paper Scissors.

I wasn't aware that Rock beats Paper 10% of the time O_o

 

[The Ben]

It does in the rain because paper tears.

 

[Arcansi]

I wasn't aware that Rock beats Paper 10% of the time O_o

Cheating is pretty easy in RPS.

No? Rock Paper Scissors is 33/33/33 all the time.

Before you choose your character. The matchups are essentially 100-0, if you disregard cheating.

 

[The Ben]

What? Before you choose your character you're 100% sure to win?

 

[Arcansi]

What? Before you choose your character you're 100% sure to win?

Before you choose your character its 33/33/33.

After you choose your char and the opponent has chosen theirs, then you can look at the matchup.

 

[DarkSimorgh]

Before you choose your character its 33/33/33.

After you choose your char and the opponent has chosen theirs, then you can look at the matchup.

This explanation of match-ups is gold.

And the Yugioh reference is a perfect analogy for why you shouldn't ban "infinites" in match-ups. Regarding recent Yugioh metagame, following a matchups rule, Wind-ups can't use their send-loop against Dark Worlds because they don't get to activate their effects, and Dragons can't activate certain grave effects because it would allow a Wind-up deck to be OTKd. This is dumb, as is banning edgefinites, infinites, and other such truly finite "infinites" while the legal arena roster and LGL is as it is.

 

[BlueberrySyrup]

Banning infinites makes them find a way to kill us other than grab us.

Is their skill level truly that bad to where all they can do is press a button to grab?

It's not competitive, it's just poor sportsmanship.

Grab release to smash is alright, I will say that but also chain grabs are all right because they generally don't lead to a KO, and can be escaped.

Falco's chaingrab is easily DI'd as an example.
(The ending dair that is)

 

[Arcansi]

And the Yugioh reference is a perfect analogy for why you shouldn't ban "infinites" in match-ups. Regarding recent Yugioh metagame, following a matchups rule, Wind-ups can't use their send-loop against Dark Worlds because they don't get to activate their effects, and Dragons can't activate certain grave effects because it would allow a Wind-up deck to be OTKd. This is dumb, as is banning edgefinites, infinites, and other such truly finite "infinites" while the legal arena roster and LGL is as it is.

You're going to have to explain your analogy further for it to make any sense for anyone that doesn't understand competitive Yu-Gi-Oh.

Which is unfortunately, why it's a really bad analogy, because I can't respond to it because of this.

 

[The Ben]

I know nothing about Yu-Gi-Oh and I understood the analogy. Banning infinites is bad because it's like banning how some cards function some of the time.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I know nothing about Yu-Gi-Oh and I understood the analogy. Banning infinites is bad because it's like banning how some cards function some of the time.

Which, unlike Smash, we can ban the cards CAUSING the infinites. You can't ban an actual tactic there either.

However, we have 39 characters and 41 stages.

Any can be banned.

A tactic cannot be banned, but it can be limited.

Likewise, Marth's isn't even an infinite, which people seem to forget, heh.

Note that I'm agreeing with you here, The Ben.

 

[The Ben]

I don't think you understand. Banning a card is fine (I think?). However if a card said something like "draw 2 cards" but for some reason in some match up it only drew 1 card because it'd be too good in that matchup otherwise there would be an issue.

 

[DarkSimorgh]

I know nothing about Yu-Gi-Oh and I understood the analogy. Banning infinites is bad because it's like banning how some cards function some of the time.

Everything from that to this post, agreed. We, as humans, exploit our strengths in the decisions that we make. Every decision has a downfall, it's just a matter of reducing the consequences by mere passiveness or taking action and reducing those consequences ourselves. Every supposed infinite in the game CAN be dealt with, and they will be dealt with as an experienced player. Making a bunch of rules to limit what your character can do is not only against the build of every individual character's moveset and matchup, but it deters the player from playing at his/her(joke) best ability by trying to remember what moves they aren't allowed to use against what characters. It is more of a hurdle than a successful leap forward. Even for someone who loves watching tourneys and participating, I would never abide by such rules. I am the 99%...

EDIT: As I said in my dragons and windups analogy, I wasn't banning card. I was simply saying that certain cards wouldn't be allowed to use their effects(the same as limiting a character's abilities), which is completely against the build of the card(character). I thought I was clear, but I wasn't apparently. I apologize. And to anyone who doesn't understand Yugioh I'm sorry for bringing it into this.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I don't think you understand. Banning a card is fine (I think?). However if a card said something like "draw 2 cards" but for some reason in some match up it only drew 1 card because it'd be too good in that matchup otherwise there would be an issue.

Right. And cards are designed the way they are to prevent one from, as your analogy states, to draw more than 1 card without a lot of other cards being played. Frankly put, they found some way to balance it by making actual balanced cards. If there isn't, it should be banned outright.

Some cards are old and aren't banworthy anymore do the meta.

But overall, no tactics have been banned, but at best have been nerfed.

We already do that with the 300% Stall Limit.

What bothers me about this topic is that the character that's being a so-called problem isn't even one according to the supposed scenario. A.K.A. Marth cannot actually infinite or infinite grab Lucas or Ness. Making the purpose of this topic, to be frank, kind of useless. Atleast unless we want to hit actual characters using actual infinites, then we have something to go on.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

I don't think people care whether it's actually infinite or not, they just don't know what else to call it. Essentially it's a chaingrab-release. But yes, the fact that IT'S NOT INFINITE, needs to be noted by the people trying to come up with rules to ban it.

 

[Arcansi]

Everything from that to this post, agreed. We, as humans, exploit our strengths in the decisions that we make. Every decision has a downfall, it's just a matter of reducing the consequences by mere passiveness or taking action and reducing those consequences ourselves. Every supposed infinite in the game CAN be dealt with, and they will be dealt with as an experienced player. Making a bunch of rules to limit what your character can do is not only against the build of every individual character's moveset and matchup, but it deters the player from playing at his/her(joke) best ability by trying to remember what moves they aren't allowed to use against what characters. It is more of a hurdle than a successful leap forward. Even for someone who loves watching tourneys and participating, I would never abide by such rules. I am the 99%...

1. Noone is saying this. They are just saying that it would be quite a lot fairer for them to not have to deal with the infinite.

It's kinda like if a certain deck could only have 3 copies of any card in it, while other decks could have 4 copies of any card in it.

It's a weird and bad limitation that makes X deck worse in a way that can be easily fixed.

2. Yeah it's against the build, but we aren't playing vbrawl anymore. Banning IDC is against mk's build, and LGL is against Pit//Rob/ others build.

It is definitely more of a successful leap forward, because all you ahve to do is remember that you can't grab release X as Y over Z times.

3. Argumentum ad Populum is the assumption that because the people who like one point outnumber the people who don't, it is correct.

It is also a logical fallacy and therefore false.

Right. And cards are designed the way they are to prevent one from, as your analogy states, to draw more than 1 card without a lot of other cards being played. Frankly put, they found some way to balance it by making actual balanced cards. If there isn't, it should be banned outright.

Kind of like the infinites we're talking about here. We can't balance them so we ban them

Some cards are old and aren't banworthy anymore do the meta.

It's never due to the meta it's due to power creep always.

But overall, no tactics have been banned, but at best have been nerfed.

Except both picking metaknight and IDC.

What bothers me about this topic is that the character that's being a so-called problem isn't even one according to the supposed scenario. A.K.A. Marth cannot actually infinite or infinite grab Lucas or Ness. Making the purpose of this topic, to be frank, kind of useless. Atleast unless we want to hit actual characters using actual infinites, then we have something to go on.

If we were to ever make a rule we would also be hitting a number of actual infinites, such as Yoshi on Wario and the like.

I don't think people care whether it's actually infinite or not, they just don't know what else to call it. Essentially it's a chaingrab-release. But yes, the fact that IT'S NOT INFINITE, needs to be noted by the people trying to come up with rules to ban it.

In what way are you talking about noting such a thing?

 

[DarkSimorgh]

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.

 

[#HBC | Joker]

A lot of people in this thread (mostly Lucas mains) keep trying to say that banning standing infinites would remove Marth's chaingrab-release on pk kids from the game, but it wouldn't. It's not infinite, it eventually ends when they get to an edge, and they keep forgetting that.

 

[-LzR-]

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.
I guess we could as well ban marths fair as well since it makes so many character instantly lose to him.

 

[The Ben]

1. Noone is saying this. They are just saying that it would be quite a lot fairer for them to not have to deal with the infinite.

It's kinda like if a certain deck could only have 3 copies of any card in it, while other decks could have 4 copies of any card in it.

It's a weird and bad limitation that makes X deck worse in a way that can be easily fixed.

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.

3. Argumentum ad Populum is the assumption that because the people who like one point outnumber the people who don't, it is correct.

It is also a logical fallacy and therefore false.

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

 

[Lukingordex]

A lot of people in this thread (mostly Lucas mains) keep trying to say that banning standing infinites would remove Marth's chaingrab-release on pk kids from the game, but it wouldn't. It's not infinite, it eventually ends when they get to an edge, and they keep forgetting that.

The edge is not the only place who Marth can grab

Ok,that is not an infinite... So what?

Marth do not need to walk when he is Chain grabbing Ness/Lucas,if he grab in the middle of the stage,the Ness/Lucas player will NEVER reach the edge.

Also,being a infinite or not,this not matter.

I don´t want ALL chain grabs banned,only the ones who the character will die before getting out.

With the exception of the ICs,because I know they only have this and banning it will end their gameplay...

 

[C.J.]

Marth do not need to walk when he is Chain grabbing Ness/Lucas,if he grab in the middle of the stage,the Ness/Lucas player will NEVER reach the edge.

Oh my gosh, this has been said to be false a million times already. When Marth regrabs either Ness or Lucas, even if he doesn't move prior to the grab, Marth is forced to move forward. So yes, Ness and Lucas WILL reach the ledge. Assuming that you are competent at mashing, at 0%, going the entire length of FD, Ness and Lucas would only take something like 20%.

I don´t want ALL chain grabs banned,only the ones who the character will die before getting out.

And this doesn't apply to Marth's on Ness and Lucas since it takes them to the ledge without fail.
Unless you want to ban DDD's dthrow-> dtilt as a kill.

With the exception of the ICs,because I know they only have this and banning it will end their gameplay...

1) Double standard with no objective reason why it's a bad thing to "ruin" a character.
2) Even without the CG, IC are still an AMAZING character due to their ability to have guaranteed anything through various frame traps since they can desynch.

 

[Lukingordex]

Oh my gosh, this has been said to be false a million times already. When Marth regrabs either Ness or Lucas, even if he doesn't move prior to the grab, Marth is forced to move forward. So yes, Ness and Lucas WILL reach the ledge. Assuming that you are competent at mashing, at 0%, going the entire length of FD, Ness and Lucas would only take something like 20%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-AKKso_Po
This video is old,but can explain what I trying to say.

 

[C.J.]

Cool, see how Marth moves forward? Means it's not an infinite. Also, it's possible to mash out faster than what the CPU does. If that video is the base or your argument, it may be a valid one, but it isn't sound.

Get new information since what you have is flawed or your interpreting it in a flawed manner.

Additionally, you'll see that Ness has two different grab break distances. I don't play the character so I can't say for sure, but I believe there is a way to guarantee, as a Ness player, that you get the longer distance. I cite my many games vs Shaky and Galeon as reference.

 

[tekkie]

Additionally, you'll see that Ness has two different grab break distances. I don't play the character so I can't say for sure, but I believe there is a way to guarantee, as a Ness player, that you get the longer distance. I cite my many games vs Shaky and Galeon as reference.

this is intriguing; can anyone confirm?

 

[C.J.]

I'd be interested in knowing for sure too. I just know that in many games vs Shaky and Galeon that they never seemed to release close to me. Either they're really lucky, I'm terribly unlucky, or there's a way to force one release over another.

 

[Lukingordex]

This is not an infinite,but has you can see,Ness has reached a enought % to get killed.

Ness/Lucas can do a air release if he is lucky,or if the Marth player does a wrong timming of pummels.

Mashing works,because it can confuse the Marth player,making him miss the timming of the grabs,but it is not guaranteed.

That video is not the base of my argument,it is just a example.

 

[C.J.]

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.