Infinites(A.K.A. low-risk high-reward combos) should be limited

[DeLux]

Sudden death as defined by the standard ruleset where they play one stock for 3 minutes or whatever the sudden death procedure is for the ruleset.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Bowser vs. D3 is doable, thanks to claw and fire breath. Still very bad though.

I believe Bowser can infinite D3 as well, but don't hold me by that one.

 

[Zigsta]

Bowser vs D3 was up in the air for me, but bowser is pretty awful, so I am pretty sure D3 would body him no matter what :/. Not that it makes any difference though.

Bowser isn't THAT awful. The infinite is a very, very big difference.

 

[Alphicans]

The infinite makes it unwinnable for bowser. I don't see how it being only like +2/+3 for D3 makes bowser any more viable. Technically this rule does help his viability, but it's just such a small amount I don't see why we'd even bother.

 

[Seagull Joe]

With limited cg's 's bad matchups would look like this:

vs would go from -3 to -2 (If 3 grabs are still legal then it will make a small difference, but he can still Dtilt us out of a Dthrow and cg to the edge in 3 grabs and such).

vs would go from -2 to 0.

vs would go from -2 to 0.

vs would go from -1 to 0.

Limiting cg's would make better vs all his bad matchups except for and . Broken.

 

[Zigsta]

The infinite makes it unwinnable for bowser. I don't see how it being only like +2/+3 for D3 makes bowser any more viable. Technically this rule does help his viability, but it's just such a small amount I don't see why we'd even bother.

A +2 is a LOT easier than a +4.

 

[Alphicans]

Missing the point are we?

 

[Zigsta]

I don't understand. You said changing the infinite rule wouldn't help the MU. I'm saying it's a big help.

What am I missing?

 

[Alphicans]

It doesn't change bowser's viability at all. When wanting to make a rule like this, we gotta look at the big picture. Will this help X's viability? If not why? And if so, why? Helping one or two match-ups most likely will not help low tier characters, but at the same time the rule could hurt a bunch of higher tiered characters.

This is my concern with the rule.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My concern with the rule is that its ****ing stupid.

But to each their own.

 

[Zigsta]

It doesn't change bowser's viability at all. When wanting to make a rule like this, we gotta look at the big picture. Will this help X's viability? If not why? And if so, why? Helping one or two match-ups most likely will not help low tier characters, but at the same time the rule could hurt a bunch of higher tiered characters.

This is my concern with the rule.

Changing the rule definitely helps Bowser's viability. D3's infinite on Bowser is easy to learn. If someone really wants to beat me, go practice D3 for 5 minutes.

Take that easy-to-learn infinite, and you instantly make Bowser more viable. It's a no-brainer.

 

[Alphicans]

It doesn't improve his viability. It improves his match-up with D3, and I don't think those two are the same thing. Bowser still has like 4 other instant lose match-ups + D3 is still really hard for him anyways.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No.

D3 isn't just a hard match-up for him, its a hard match-up based around abusing a simple tactic.

The only other character who has that against Bowser is MK, and he'll be banned soon.

 

[Alphicans]

There are plenty of other match-ups that bowser has that requires his opponent using mindless tactics to beat him.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

...Such as...?

If you say Falco I might have to punch a wall.

 

[Alphicans]

Thinking more along the lines of olimar, diddy and ICs.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You can't just pick Olimar and beat a good Bowser. You can't just pick Diddy and beat a good Bowser. You can't just pick Ice Climbers and beat a good Bowser.

-----

You can just pick Meta Knight and beat a good Bowser. You can just pick Dedede and beat a good Bowser.

 

[Alphicans]

MK is not on D3 level vs bowser.

I don't see how you're proving any points. So those match-ups aren't "super auto win, I can just pocket CP," but they're pretty damn close. I'd argue that if you can desynch blizzard and uair as ICs, you can probably win pretty easy. Oli is close to that level as well.

Yoshi is really close to D3 level. Learn the spacing of the pivot grab and learn how to use eggs well, and you got him beat. Hell, might as well add samus to that list too.

 

[T-block]

Changing the rule definitely helps Bowser's viability. D3's infinite on Bowser is easy to learn. If someone really wants to beat me, go practice D3 for 5 minutes.

Take that easy-to-learn infinite, and you instantly make Bowser more viable. It's a no-brainer.

or just play charizard and learn to use flamethrower ^^

marth-squirtle becomes +1/-1 or possibly even if you take out grab release stuffs

 

[Zigsta]

Thinking more along the lines of olimar, diddy and ICs.

With MK banned and without D3's infinite, Bowser's hardest MUs are ICs, Yoshi, and Wario, in that order.

 

[Alphicans]

Lol ok. Anyways, I am pretty sure every top/high tier match-up he has is -2 or worse >_>.

 

[Zigsta]

Lucario is -1.

EAT IT, ALPHIE!!

 

[Alphicans]

That's bull****. Bowser is awful, lucario def +2's him.

 

[Flayl]

Alphicans who are the characters that Bowser can UAir out of an air release?

 

[Zigsta]

That's bull****. Bowser is awful, lucario def +2's him.

The best argument EVER.

 

[Alphicans]

Alphicans who are the characters that Bowser can UAir out of an air release?

Not lucario lol. But off the top of my head, jiggs and ganon? I don't think he'd have time on wario, could be wrong though.

Why does this matter?

The best argument EVER.

Pretty much the only argument!

 

[Flayl]

Not lucario lol. But off the top of my head, jiggs and ganon? I don't think he'd have time on wario, could be wrong though.

Because it shows how little you (and your region for that matter) know about Bowser. I wouldn't say anything if you used a different approach. For example:

"I don't see how Bowser VS Lucario is -1"

"Dedede is still bad for Bowser wothout the small-step/infinite right?"

But I've come to expect your kind of posts from BBR members really. You're in there so you automatically know the matchups for all characters.

 

[Alphicans]

LOL!

Flayl you need to

A. Understand when I am being half-serious
B. Accept your character is trash

EDIT: you also need to get off my ***, and see the bigger picture here. Does bowser's viability truly go up? If so why? Who gives a **** about who he can uair out of grab release? He gets stomped by the vast majority of high and top tier, that's all I really need to know.

Double EDIT: So I looked at the bowser boards and saw from two separate lists, that bowser can uair jiggs from air release. I thought I read somewhere that he could do it to ganon as well, my bad. Is there new frame data that supports that bowser can uair others? Me not knowing this **** doesn't mean I don't know match-ups about bowser, it means I don't look at the bowser boards a lot. I know he can't air release to uair high/top tier characters, and knew he for sure could do it to jiggs. Don't ask about random facts about your character to prove a worthless point.

Triple EDIT: just found your thread. That wasn't there the last time I checked the bowser boards. Obligatory "nice work." So there is new frame data that says you can uair other characters, which is cool, and yeah I didn't know that, but to call me out on something that was relatively recently discovered AND is something you have a personal investment in still doesn't prove anything, and really only gives the impression that you want to show off your knowledge :/.

 

[Arcansi]

Marth/Ness isn't really a change. The grab **** is just icing. Lucas, I'm less sure about.

What if the TO is unable to determine what is and isn't guaranteed?

What if the TO is unable to decide wether MK increased his cape distance or not? I never saw the ruleset address this.

Seems inconsistent. You're banning infinites such as Marth's regrab on Ness because the matchup specific metagame deteriorates to the point of being the Marth regrab on Ness is pretty much the whole metagame, causing the imbalance. If this weren't the case, you'd have to admit the imbalance isn't created by infinites, and thus limiting infinites isn't the solution as infinites aren't the problem.

See: The post right above yours.

Marth/Ness isn't really a change. The grab **** is just icing. Lucas, I'm less sure about.

It isn't the whole metagame.

Although you can use this point with other matchups, so I'll respond to it.

Infinites don't necessarily create an imbalance. There are times and places where they can be fine (lv 3 x-factor infinites in MVC3, for example.)

However, in our game it is extremely easy to notice that they do create a large imbalance in many matchups they affect.

This is true with IC's also. The only thing is, the URC and other such authorities have taught the brawl community so well that things will be this way I believe it would be nigh impossible at this point for a rule like mine to ever go through if it included IC's.

It may be flawed by nature, but it is for the better.

In this way, I find it much like the LGL.

Also, your point is kinda wrong. Infinites are a problem in some matchups, and the in others. Limiting them almost across the board is to prevent rules complexity and although it inhibits balance, is done so fairly enough.

The IC's infinites, while they do cause imbalances, do it on so few characters that this is one of the times the line is crossed between balance & community approval.

Also, the community disapproval would be HUGE if it was to go through without IC's being exempt. I'm pretty sure the URC would probably take some stance like 'can't do this, community don't like it enough -_-'.

Yet you don't want to advocate banning IC infinites by an arbitrary clause of "2 characters", despite your admission that guaranteed grabs are "pretty much their whole metagame." Every Matchup specific metagame then deteriorates to the point of being the IC infinites are pretty much the whole metagame, causing balance?

Balance within IC's character specific metagames, as I can see it.

Why is the ruleset favoring the ICs in favor of Marth?

Because rulesets sometimes must do this. In this way it is like the LGL.

In doing this, you've created and we uncover a huge disconnect with your original assertion that infinites lead to imbalanced gameplay. If IC infinites seem to contribute towards balance in your eyes, then you have to admit that infinites as an entity aren't necessarily agents of imbalance, thus limiting them as a group isn't justified. You'd be better off limiting the specific imbalancing agents (through creating a mod) rather than blanket limiting a tactic. By limiting infinites on a hypothetical level, you're just limiting the game to limit the game

1. I never meant to say infinites lead to imbalanced gameplay as a constant. It's a flexible term that only means anything in the correct situation.

2. If I do this and it adds balance, I am limiting the game to add balance. If I do this and it removes balance, I am limiting the game to remove balance (or just to limit the game.)

Infinites are not always an imbalanced tactic. HOWEVER, they are a lot of the time an imbalanced tactic in our game, so much so that they should be limited.

It doesn't change bowser's viability at all. When wanting to make a rule like this, we gotta look at the big picture. Will this help X's viability? If not why? And if so, why? Helping one or two match-ups most likely will not help low tier characters, but at the same time the rule could hurt a bunch of higher tiered characters.

This is my concern with the rule.

No, you've got to look at what it affects.

You see, your moving away from competitiveness in rulesets and moving towards favouring the high tiers just because their high tiers.

A competitive ruleset should NEVER do this. Tiers should be fluid and change as needed, as they are never set in stone. If it hurts the high tier characters but in the end brings balance, it in the end brings balance.

And in the end, it's balance that we're looking for. Not high tiers.

 

[Alphicans]

How am I favoring high tiers at all? I am saying this rule doesn't help low tiers (helps them a very tiny amount), while it hurts high tier vs high tier match-ups a considerable amount (arguable of course).

This whole bowser talk has gotten away from the bigger picture. If you remove D3's infinite, and wario's CG + any other harmful cgs, bowser won't magically place better in tournaments. He might occasionally if by chance he runs into only characters that abuse cgs vs him, but overall he's gonna place poorly no matter what. This applies to all "bad" characters. If you want them to do better, you need to change a lot more than cgs, and once you start doing that, the problem of complex rulesets really comes into play.

 

[Arcansi]

So again I'm going to ask you what matchups your talking about.

Complex rulesets are actually fine if done correctly. Nobody has any ambition, or those who had it were shot down by such a community that would do so.

I think we've hit a point where it comes down to how you view match-ups.

I see Match-ups like:

Falco vs snake, diddy, wolf, fox, marth and lucario going from 0 to -1 or worse for falco w/o a full cg
D3 vs snake, diddy, marth, wario, pit (the same as above)

and see match-ups like:

D3 vs bowser and DK
Marth vs lucas and ness
DK vs lucas
Pika vs falco, fox, wolf and sheik being match-ups that go toward balance (from -x closer to 0)

You may disagree with my limited assessment, but this is my opinion on what match-ups would look like.

EDIT: D3 vs bowser probably isn't a change either.

I'll just use this.

Except I can't because it's your opinion.

So either bring some actual material to the table or concede, no offence.

I don't understand why you would post this knowing I can't deal with it.

 

[Alphicans]

Now remember, the point isn't necessarily if I am right about match-ups or not. The point is that there is a possibility to take the position I am on, and there isn't a clear way to prove I am wrong in all cases.

So this bowser talk, I may be wrong, but my greater purpose has still been served.

Arcansi... match-ups ARE opinion. None of them aren't. This is my point, and this is why the rule is bad.

Lol, "actual material." What does that even mean? What is actual to you?

 

[Yummy!]

My concern with the rule is that its ****ing stupid.

But to each their own.

hahaha made my day

 

[Arcansi]

Now remember, the point isn't necessarily if I am right about match-ups or not. The point is that there is a possibility to take the position I am on, and there isn't a clear way to prove I am wrong in all cases.

So this bowser talk, I may be wrong, but my greater purpose has still been served.

Arcansi... match-ups ARE opinion. None of them aren't. This is my point, and this is why the rule is bad.

Lol, "actual material." What does that even mean? What is actual to you?

1. Actual arguments (a.k.a. non-opinions) that are arguable are actual material. Are you aware of the definition?

2. There is a possibility to take any position. If the position is wrong it doesn't matter.

I only need to prove that the matchup promotes balance to do so. And, barring opinionated material (I think that... etc) my chart still hasn't been disproven.

So what your saying is any rule made to change matchups is bad? Like...LGL, stagelists...

Also, the rule also promotes skill definition in our game by adding increased chances for it, therefore making it more precise.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You're very welcome.

 

[Alphicans]

1. Actual arguments (a.k.a. non-opinions) that are arguable are actual material. Are you aware of the definition?

2. There is a possibility to take any position. If the position is wrong it doesn't matter.

I only need to prove that the matchup promotes balance to do so. And, barring opinionated material (I think that... etc) my chart still hasn't been disproven.

So what your saying is any rule made to change matchups is bad? Like...LGL, stagelists...

Also, the rule also promotes skill definition in our game by adding increased chances for it, therefore making it more precise.

Arguments are opinions... are YOU aware of the definition? Arguments may use facts to help support them, but at the end of the day they're opinions. That's why arguments are debatable.

Yes, there is a possibility to take your position, but your position is opinion. Your chart is an opinion, not a fact, so I think I've come up with a reasonable response to it. If what I say is true, then your rule is bad. Agreed?

LGL is a bad rule (didn't lux already explain why you shouldn't use LGL as part of your argument?) Stagelists aren't made to change match-ups, they're made so we can test skill the best way possible. Match-ups shouldn't be a factor when creating them (unfortunately they often are).

I don't think it makes testing skill anymore efficient. Seems the same to me.

 

[Zigsta]

How am I favoring high tiers at all? I am saying this rule doesn't help low tiers (helps them a very tiny amount), while it hurts high tier vs high tier match-ups a considerable amount (arguable of course).

This whole bowser talk has gotten away from the bigger picture. If you remove D3's infinite, and wario's CG + any other harmful cgs, bowser won't magically place better in tournaments. He might occasionally if by chance he runs into only characters that abuse cgs vs him, but overall he's gonna place poorly no matter what. This applies to all "bad" characters. If you want them to do better, you need to change a lot more than cgs, and once you start doing that, the problem of complex rulesets really comes into play.

I disagree with this. I've lost many tournaments because I've run into a D3 or Wario who knows the CG.

Bowser will definitely have better results without infinites. I'm not saying he's going to win tournaments, but he will place higher.

 

[Alphicans]

How does the first premise lead to the conclusion "bowser will do better." Are you saying you could beat these warios and D3s if they didn't have the cg? If they're good, they'll still beat you because the advantage will still be substantial, despite not being unwinnable.

 

[Zigsta]

Yes, I'm absolutely saying that. All the D3s and Warios I've lost to in tournament have come down to last stock, and then I get grabbed and lose. I'm VERY good at not getting grabbed, but there's not a very wide margin for error.

 

[Alphicans]

It's hard to say for sure what would've happened. So many factors go into a match, way more factors than the match-up mechanics themselves. It's very easy to say "if X was removed I would've won," but then you're neglecting the effort they put into trying to grab you while giving up a whole bunch of other options. I am not saying you wouldn't have won, I am saying that to say you would've won is not a necessary conclusion. Beyond that point, the fact that harder match-ups still exist for bowser do exist, and if the **** cgs were removed perhaps they would've picked those characters to beat you if they lost as their main.

Bottom line is I DON'T KNOW, but neither does Arcansi. You can't say your rule will solve viability/balance issues, because we don't know what will happen to match-ups with the rule in place. What the rule needs is testing NATION WIDE for a long period of time... But why do that? Is there any reason to believe the improvement to the game will be so vast it could make up for the potential metagame shifting results? Who knows what will happen. What I do know is that the current ruleset tests skill to very high degree while keeping the integrity of brawl in place. I don't know what else I can say at this point to be honest, as this is probably the main point I've been wanting to get at this whole time.