Also, there already an anti-infinite rule. Nothing about 300%. This is to decentralize infinites for stalling, which is enough as is. You wanna change that rule? Then you should think of a way to do it without punishing skill for the shallow enough depth Brawl has as is.
Not punishing skill. 50% is quite plenty for one grab, is it not?
Final note: I dare you to find ONE fighting game where infinites were banned. ONE.
So, rules so far for floor tourney are as follows:
-2/3 Rounds, matches are best 2/3, 3/5 in winners/losers finals, 4/7 in grand finals (Subject to change)
-MOB/KAK banned (Subject to change)
-All infinites excluding wall infinites and Weapon Steal-only infinites are banned
--1 Free Throw per combo
--1 OTG per combo
--No ACs/33s
-Winner keeps character, loser is free to change
-Stage is random select
This good enough for you? Scource (
http://testyourmight.com/forum/showthread.php?2656-rules-or-no-rules-MKA-amp-MKD-at-wb..&)
Note that they also limit combos. So, yeah.
Infinites? Suck up and deal with them. Banning infinites is just plain silly, and every notion that MvC3 or ANYONE would ban infinites if they weren't patched is absolutely wrong, coming from someone in the fighting game community. I have played a wide array of games, and I can say that banning infinites and long combos- with that hampering the ability to get into the game, would kill the game and the community pretty ****ing fast, and would do far more harm to a game than the infinites ever could. Even THE LARGEST MONEY MATCH OUT OF ANY FIGHTING GAME IN HISTORY had infinites in it.
I conceded this point. I can't see how it relates to us, though.
tl;dr
Combo/Infinite Ban = Scrub Mentality
Because this has reasoning behind it when the infinite is uncompetitive by definition.
This is incredibly awkward logic. However, it is not the case for two simple reasons:
1. The player is not required to choose Lucas.
2. Choosing Marth is not your only option, and as Marth the regrab loop is not your only option.
I noted that I put that wrong in an earlier post. To restate, it becomes an option that allows you to win even though the opponent has already proven he has a higher skill level then you. Unless one of the skills we actually wish to test is the ability to get 3 grabs in a game in specific matchups?
While I'm not a big advocate of Sirlin, his writing on banning things involves removing things that overcentralize universally, not locally. (in the US) Akuma is banned because, besides the Akuma player being much much worse, the only option to winning is selecting Akuma. In this case, it overcentralizes universally because it limits your winning options to selecting and playing Akuma.
He never actually says globally. I mean, he implies it, but everything he says can be applied to a matchup without taking the quote out of context.
In the E. Honda vs Ryu match-up, the optimal strategy for Ryu is to repeatedly throw fireballs, and it causes Honda to lose the match-up pretty hard. This overcentralizes locally because the strategy of spamming fireballs (in this example) only applies to this single match-up, and while it is optimal for the case of using Ryu against E. Honda, it is not optimal for Ryu against, say, Sagat, and it definitely not optimal for T. Hawk to attempt to spam fireballs against E. Honda. While banning fireballs would "balance" the match-up, this is really an unnecessary change because the match-up in the first place only happens when the players select those two characters against each other.
Changing something only in the situation that it is imbalanced is unnecessary?
I could understand compared to globally balancing it, but your last sentence basically seems to say what the paragraph says in all, which is that yes, matchups only happen when two players select X & Y character. (Where X may = Y)
Put into the much more relevant example of Brawl, Dedede's optimal strategy against characters that can be chaingrabbed is to grab them and then chaingrab them across the stage. You could say this "centralizes" the match-up toward getting grabs for Dedede. However, it certainly does not centralize any strategies toward picking Dedede in the first place.
tl;dr We'd ban things to stop games from centralizing toward a single strategy of selecting one character (or stage, or combination of character and stage) and using it, not things that centralize character match-up specific strategies.
Like the above, I am failing to realize how this relates to the discussion unless your saying it simply isn't uncompetitive enough to become banned. Is that what your trying to say?
K what? Arcansi, you actually did not make much sense at all. Your first point... Proof for what? All I said was that competitive is subjective. That leads to point 7, which is really silly, because your opinion is not more competitive than mine. You want proof? There is none, just like how you haven't proven anything either.
You know, I get bagged on for being too basic, as if I'm insulting your guys' intelligence when I do something that is basic. But...your forcing me.
com·pet·i·tive
[kuhm-pet-i-tiv]
adjective
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
Obviously, uncompetitive is the opposite.
(Some)Infinites are uncompetitive because they are not well suited for competition(in Brawl).
This is because they take certain matchups and overcentralize them towards one strategy, often for only one character. This is bad for competition because it creates a scenario where one character has a large advantage over the other, and this advantage also stems from something that is extremely easy to pull off. And even if you do get punished for missing it, you will never be as harshly punished as if you were to land it.
While this would probably be acceptable if it wasn't so extreme, that is not the case.
Understand?
Point 2, I don't get at all. Point 3 also makes no sense. 3 grabs max? What are you saying? Point 4... You have an opinion too. Why are you thinking your opinion is fact, and the others are just opinions? How smart do you think you are? Your arguments aren't logical either :/. Trust me, if this thread was actually worth responding to, those people would be coming in and tearing you apart. I am only responding to you so I can attempt to stop you from making yourself look dumber than you already are. Yeah it's offensive, but you really need to trust me when I tell you you're just being a really typical dumb 15 year old.
Point 2 is saying that if infinites were to get limited, you could just pick a character that cannot do infinites, thereby solving the problem through character switching. This is very close to the same as changing character if your stage gets globaly banned.
With no input error (extremely easy to assume because of how easy this stuff is once you learn it) you would only need 3 grabs to win a game where you can infinite your opponent off a grab. If the infinite doesn't start on a grab, replace 'grab' with whatever move does start the infinite.
EDIT: Would you like me to explain the rest of my points (barring 6) in similar fashion?
Point 6 is the only thing that really made sense to me. Thank-you for clarifying your rule. So I guess the opponent has to keep a tab of how much damage ICs have done. Oh and when the IC player does go over 50%, then what? How is there a way to prove it? What defines a cg? Can ICs throw normally? What if the cg was a mistake, and they purposefully drop it right away.
1. They would have to keep a tab of how much damage the IC's have done in a single grab combo, if they wanted too. (That's easy math though.)
2. If they admit it/there was observers, stock/game/set. If not, you would have to save the match to a replay and watch it over to decide (although this really should not happen given sensible IC's who know their combos and plan for it to do 45%) in which case it would probably just go game/set. Although I would much rather argue this after we got the rest of the stuff out of the way, if you don't mind.
And lol, you'd like to TEST the punch rule. K sweet. Allow me to make a ruleset that you'd probably agree with, and then everyone can laugh at you.
What is wrong with wanting to test a rule to get more information on it again?
Arcansi, I suggest you use this ruleset + anything else you want to add at a tournament you hold and see for yourself how much enforceability comes into play.
It's currently impossible for me to ever host a tournament due to forces outside my control. Else I might just have done it. (I mean, I could probably pretty easily host a no-buy in/prize 8 person tourney, if that qualifies)
On topic though, I wonder how you plan to determine what is "low risk". If an ICs player dash grabs a Luigi (he spotdodges) and gets killed at 60 by Up B, or dash grabs MK (shuttle loops, nairs, 0-deaths nana and then outspaces popo easily), wasn't that high risk/high reward?
Yes, but grab in itself is not a high risk option. Dash grab is a different story, and only in certain matchups. Would you have the rule apply to this also, and if so why?
What about Charizard's Rock Smash sweetspot combos? Those do 60+ damage. But as a PT player, I'll tell you if you get shielded, you can get punished very hard. What about Marth's shield breaker? I'd say thats pretty high reward as well.
I don't understand why these are low-risk high-reward either, because I never said they were.