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

[popsofctown]

Except im telling you my motives and your accepting them. I don't understand how they can seem foul, espicially after I told you I would have no problem with balancing this game to the fullest extent of possibility as long as depth gained >/= depth lost + balance is gained.




Eh. It might be different in your community, (The one calling me a scrub...so idk.) but where I'm from, if you can prove the change was for the better of the game, you learn to deal with it. Your character isn't suddenly unviable or anything, there's really nothing to complain about.

If you formed a committee and handicapped every single matchup that goes past 70/30 in some way, I might not boycott your tournament. I'd have to think about that. That would be moving towards reasonable. Still, no committee could be perfect. What's an extreme advantage, what's not? Is charizard's edgefinite too good? etc. You should err on the side of status quo.

 

[Arcansi]

Imagine Smash is like RPS in terms of character selection:

I think a game where you'd have to pick more than one option (ie rock paper or scissors) in order to compete has more depth and requires more skill than a game where you would only need to pick only one option ( ie. scissors) and continually tie.


I think you would be better suited trying to make everyone have an equal number of adv / disadv ratio matchup than you would trying to make EVERY matchup neutral.

I like this idea, and it makes sense. So sure. Limiting infinites allows us to control character matchups a lot better, because there should never be a counter that goes too far.

If you formed a committee and handicapped every single matchup that goes past 70/30 in some way, I might not boycott your tournament. I'd have to think about that. That would be moving towards reasonable. Still, no committee could be perfect. What's an extreme advantage, what's not? Is charizard's edgefinite too good? etc. You should err on the side of status quo.

My ruleset would handicap all those matchups. Note that there's almost nothing to respond to here except 1. It's too arbitrary!: Every rule is, I have standards and a formula.

2. Err on the side of the status quo: Idk if this is a fallacy or not, but in any case it's opinion.

 

[DeLux]

I like this idea, and it makes sense. So sure. Limiting infinites allows us to control character matchups a lot better, because there should never be a counter that goes too far.

My point is, infinites may or may not have a huge influence on a matchup. If infinites were the only thing to determine if a matchup is a factor in one's favor, ICs would be S tier. But they aren't, because the game is more complicated than infinite and heavy combos. You need to balance other factors like: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=244329

Or add in base knockback, knock back growth, damage, SDI multipliers, etc.

Why not change those? Because you don't understand exactly how they work so you don't know how augmenting those will affect the metagame. But you aren't advocating changing those things that also affect matchups, just something you subjectively hate :\

 

[Arcansi]

My point is, infinites may or may not have a huge influence on a matchup. If infinites were the only thing to determine if a matchup is a factor in one's favor, ICs would be S tier. But they aren't, because the game is more complicated than infinite and heavy combos. You need to balance other factors like: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=244329

Or add in base knockback, knock back growth, damage, SDI multipliers, etc.

Why not change those? Because you don't understand exactly how they work so you don't know how augmenting those will affect the metagame. But you aren't advocating changing those things that also affect matchups, just something you subjectively hate :\

I could find out exactly how they work. I'm working with what I know currently.

Also, to change those is completely unrealistic within the constraints of vbrawl and such, which I am working in.

 

[Zankoku]

imo just set everyone who can infinite's handicap to 100% so they're already close to KO percentage. That way both people have to work equally hard to get the killing blow. Sorta.

 

[Arcansi]

imo just set everyone who can infinite's handicap to 100% so they're already close to KO percentage. That way both people have to work equally hard to get the killing blow. Sorta.

This post strikes me as odd...

Eh, maybe. Probably lower, but it could work.

 

[popsofctown]

I like this idea, and it makes sense. So sure. Limiting infinites allows us to control character matchups a lot better, because there should never be a counter that goes too far.



My ruleset would handicap all those matchups. Note that there's almost nothing to respond to here except 1. It's too arbitrary!: Every rule is, I have standards and a formula.

2. Err on the side of the status quo: Idk if this is a fallacy or not, but in any case it's opinion.

You broke your own standards, you're allowing ICs to infinite everyone.

 

[Arcansi]

You broke your own standards, you're allowing ICs to infinite everyone.

You don't even know my standards. You can't claim that.

 

[popsofctown]

So your standards aren't public?

I have to give up here.

 

[Ghostbone]

His standards don't make sense.

 

[popsofctown]

His standards don't make sense.

You don't even know his standards. You can't claim that!

 

[Ghostbone]

You don't even know his standards. You can't claim that!

Yes I can....when he starts having many double standards unless he basically makes the game unplayable I can say that they don't makes sense.

 

[Arcansi]

So your standards aren't public?

I have to give up here.

They're public.

Yes I can....when he starts having many double standards unless he basically makes the game unplayable I can say that they don't makes sense.

So what your saying is you want me to make the game unplayable?


Sorry, can't do so.

 

[Ghostbone]

So what your saying is you want me to make the game unplayable?


Sorry, can't do so.

No I'm saying by your standards we'd end up making the game unplayable.

 

[Baro]

This thread is pretty disgusting.

 

[Arcansi]

No I'm saying by your standards we'd end up making the game unplayable.

How So, exactly?

 

[-LzR-]

You just play the game and suddenly break 9000 rules without knowing it and you lose against your sister. How do you like that?

 

[Akaku94]

Agreed; the focus becomes "an opportunity just opened up for me to grab, but I don't know if I'm over my chaingrab limit; did that two consecutive grabs a minute ago count?" and too much emphasis is placed on remembering, keeping track of, and following the arbitrary limits.

 

[B.A.M.]

people calm down. Arcansi doesnt understand logic. It eludes him. Dont worry Arcansi, Ill play your rule ridden brawl. I cant wait to get free wins without pushing a button. But you are right though Arcansi. I mean HOW DARE SAKURAI put low risk high reward tactics in a fighting game! Thats absurd! there should NEVER be such safe tactics. Lets all use low risk low reward, aka pokes all day! We can all pretend to be Dhalsim. We can just jab and run! dont jab cancel though; that ish is broken.

 

[Arcansi]

Maybe reasonable discussion can be reached again.

Maybe people can explain themselves with logic so I can actually understand what they're getting at.

Sure I don't see very much the same as you, I'll admit that. Does that mean I don't understand anything? No, no it does not, unless you can prove it.

If someone wants me to restate my points, I would be happy to do so.

Hopefully this community is mature enough to debate logically with me.

Responses to posts I didn't respond to.

You just play the game and suddenly break 9000 rules without knowing it and you lose against your sister. How do you like that?

I don't understand how this could happen. Explain?

No I'm saying by your standards we'd end up making the game unplayable.

How so?

Agreed; the focus becomes "an opportunity just opened up for me to grab, but I don't know if I'm over my chaingrab limit; did that two consecutive grabs a minute ago count?" and too much emphasis is placed on remembering, keeping track of, and following the arbitrary limits.

I don't think you understand the limit.

It's just a % limit per unavoidable chaingrab/other noted combo.

In no way would you need to remember anything from 2 mins ago. In fact, the combos would just change and be memorized differently.

 

[Arcansi]

still need a delete button.

Or a way to add quotes to an edit easily.

 

[Ghostbone]

Or a way to add quotes to an edit easily.

Quote something, cut and paste it into the post you're editing

 

[Arcansi]

Quote something, cut and paste it into the post you're editing

I meant within the coding of the site. I know how to do this, I just too often forget about it when typing longer posts.

Also, yes this thread has a point and people posting in it would be nice.

Unless the silence means there are no counterpoints?

 

[Alphicans]

The counter-point of

"competition is subjective" has yet to be dealt with by you. You refused to answer it adequately in the discussion, so I see no reason to respond to anything you say.

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, balancing something =/= giving competitive depth or making it a more competitive game. We could make it so you can only play one character in the game and only use the A button. That would make it incredibly balanced, but would it be competitive? Brawl as it is is fairly competitive. Without MK, every character has their bad match-ups, and lots of high tier has a good chance at winning a tournament. Diversity is good, but forcing balance by removing depth to a game is a step in the wrong direction.

I never responded to this, and I aploigize.

My change does not remove depth in a game, only adds it.

It adds it by making more character reactions where more options are open, thereby increasing depth.

If your point was something else, would you mind pointing it out?

 

[Ghostbone]

Giving characters more reactions? Might as well start forcing players into a neutral position after every hit.

 

[Dre89]

Remove items to make the game fair and remove overpowered tactics.


Keep tactics that are unfair and overpowered in certain MUs legal.

 

[Flayl]

Items weren't turned off because of fairness (as in their power) but because of their randomness.

 

[Alphicans]

The counter-point of

"competition is subjective" has yet to be dealt with by you. You refused to answer it adequately in the discussion, so I see no reason to respond to anything you say.

I never responded to this, and I aploigize.

My change does not remove depth in a game, only adds it.

It adds it by making more character reactions where more options are open, thereby increasing depth.

If your point was something else, would you mind pointing it out?

You responded over 10 minutes after I posted and still didn't answer me.

"Competitive" doesn't function in one framework. I can't argue that what you're saying as competitive isn't, but that means neither can you. Essentially both of our statements are true, and that's all I need to refute everything you say. It turns out the majority of people exist within my framework of competitive.

 

[Arcansi]

Giving characters more reactions? Might as well start forcing players into a neutral position after every hit.

This is not logical.

Items weren't turned off because of fairness (as in their power) but because of their randomness.

Their power was a LARGE reason, and still is (because we can minimilaze the randomness pretty easily, due to research.)

You responded over 10 minutes after I posted and still didn't answer me.

"Competitive" doesn't function in one framework. I can't argue that what you're saying as competitive isn't, but that means neither can you. Essentially both of our statements are true, and that's all I need to refute everything you say. It turns out the majority of people exist within my framework of competitive.

So because what I'm saying is true, it's wrong?

Other then that wierd wording, I think I get what your saying.

However, wouldn't this apply to every argument as like a blanket 'let's not change the status quo thing because nothing is more competitive?'

Most people have a definition of competitive. Would you mind telling me what yours (& apparently the rest of the communities) is? I'm 99% sure that my argument falls under it.

 

[Alphicans]

It's not quite a blanket statement, because certain arguments can be resolved based off being more reasonable. Dualism vs Physicalism debates revolve around that, among many other philosophical debates. I guess what you need to do is to show everyone why your definition of competitive is the more reasonable one to follow.

To clarify, my view of "competitive" in video games is this: To create a ruleset that tests who the best player is while enforcing as little complicated rules as possible. Why less complicated rules? Because it decreases the chances of someone winning/losing a stock due to a technicality in breaking the rules. If you wanted to implement your cg rule, I think it would do more harm than good, because lots of people may forget the rule, or accidentally buffer something and then get penalized for it.

I understand your position as such: "competitive" in video games should include a ruleset that tests who the best player is, but has no limits on complicated rules. If these rules even out the playing field, it allows for a greater test in skill.

As I said I feel over doing rules does more harm than good. I also feel "evening" out the playing field isn't the same as testing who is the better player. Why is that? Because normally (lets use ICs vs ganon for example) ICs would beat a ganon easily, but if you were to limit cgs and blizzard (the main reason ganon loses horribly), the ganon has an advantage he normally wouldn't have. Maybe the match-up is way too easy for him now, and it takes more skill from the ICs player to win. It's unclear what making these changes does, but with what we have now we know what we're getting.

Also note you can't use "we could test this" as a proper argument because no amount of testing really proves the point you want to make. An ICs who beats a ganon with blizzard and infinites is the more skilled player because the game says so. Whoever wins is the more skilled one. To say it'd be different if we limited X and Y is a very obvious statement and I see no value in the point at all.

I hope you see what I am getting at.

 

[Arcansi]

I guess what you need to do is to show everyone why your definition of competitive is the more reasonable one to follow.

Ok

To clarify, my view of "competitive" in video games is this: To create a ruleset that tests who the best player is while enforcing as little complicated rules as possible. Why less complicated rules? Because it decreases the chances of someone winning/losing a stock due to a technicality in breaking the rules. If you wanted to implement your cg rule, I think it would do more harm than good, because lots of people may forget the rule, or accidentally buffer something and then get penalized for it.

If the rule was really that complicated, I think I could see your point. However, the rule really isn't.

Sure there might be a week or 2 where players need to relearn combos, and we could even give time for that, so people wouldn't get punished on a technicality.

However, once people know what they're doing again, nobody should be losing any stocks over a technicality without pretty much doing it on purpose. Nobody would forget the rule because nobody forgets other rules.

With a warning time to allow people to adjust, I could see this rule being just fine and not causing any dumb stock losses.

As I said I feel over doing rules does more harm than good. I also feel "evening" out the playing field isn't the same as testing who is the better player. Why is that? Because normally (lets use ICs vs ganon for example) ICs would beat a ganon easily, but if you were to limit cgs and blizzard (the main reason ganon loses horribly), the ganon has an advantage he normally wouldn't have. Maybe the match-up is way too easy for him now, and it takes more skill from the ICs player to win. It's unclear what making these changes does, but with what we have now we know what we're getting.

If matchups are 50/50, they prove who is the better player the best.

And with correct testing, we could make sure we don't change the matchup too much.

Also note you can't use "we could test this" as a proper argument because no amount of testing really proves the point you want to make. An ICs who beats a ganon with blizzard and infinites is the more skilled player because the game says so. Whoever wins is the more skilled one. To say it'd be different if we limited X and Y is a very obvious statement and I see no value in the point at all.

I mean we could test this with the rule in place. It would allow us to see what the matchup would very likely be like, with correct testing done.

 

[Alphicans]

How does it show the match-up is even? What if the ICs still keep winning? Would it be due to skill or due to match-up mechanics? It's actually way harder to prove than you're making it out to be. As far as I see it, the current ruleset ALREADY shows who the better player is. To add more rules to determine the same thing is absurd, wouldn't you think?

 

[Arcansi]

How does it show the match-up is even? What if the ICs still keep winning? Would it be due to skill or due to match-up mechanics? It's actually way harder to prove than you're making it out to be. As far as I see it, the current ruleset ALREADY shows who the better player is. To add more rules to determine the same thing is absurd, wouldn't you think?

1. It shows the matchup is even because through testing and analysis is how you get a matchup. So you can get a new one with a different ruleset, can you not?

The second sentence seems really situational and not aimed at the matchup.

Our ruleset shows who the better player is, when you take into account the large amount of bias given to one side due to the character matchup.

I am trying to remove this so that it may do it more efficently.

 

[Alphicans]

Define efficiently. You can't throw that term out without defining it.

Removing aspects of a match-up is bound to change it. I am unconvinced it makes it even, and even if it does I am unconvinced there is a way to determine it. I am also very unconvinced even match-ups determine who the best player is.

Imagine this scenario:

player one plays character A, 2 plays B, 3 plays C. Now A, B and C all go even with each other according to some authoritative source. Player A beats C, loses to B. Player B beats A loses to C. Player C beats B loses to A.

Who's the better player? Determining even match-ups is an impossibly hard task. In reality there is no such thing as an even match-up except for a ditto, but as you should know, dittos don't prove who the more skilled player is. You're getting caught up in the whole "even match-ups determine everything."

I claim they determine nothing, or at least nothing to significant. With this said, I see no reason to make complicated and surgical changes to the ruleset because it WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. This is my stance.

 

[Arcansi]

Define efficiently. You can't throw that term out without defining it.

Removing aspects of a match-up is bound to change it. I am unconvinced it makes it even, and even if it does I am unconvinced there is a way to determine it. I am also very unconvinced even match-ups determine who the best player is.

Imagine this scenario:

player one plays character A, 2 plays B, 3 plays C. Now A, B and C all go even with each other according to some authoritative source. Player A beats C, loses to B. Player B beats A loses to C. Player C beats B loses to A.

Who's the better player? Determining even match-ups is an impossibly hard task. In reality there is no such thing as an even match-up except for a ditto, but as you should know, dittos don't prove who the more skilled player is. You're getting caught up in the whole "even match-ups determine everything."

I claim they determine nothing, or at least nothing to significant. With this said, I see no reason to make complicated and surgical changes to the ruleset because it WILL ACCOMPLISH NOTHING. This is my stance.

1. A truly even matchup determines quite possibly everything. This is not your stance, and I don't expect to reach one, so eh.

2. Being closer to true balance = more balance = better skill differentiation, would it not?

3. More Efficently(This definition makes more sense given the situation) -
Preforming or functioning in a better manner then the way it was before.

4. I am not saying the matchup definition will be perfect, but that given we can trust the validity of our own community, as long as it is more balanced then before, we have accomplished something.

5. In that scenario, Player X is better then Player Y who they beat. They are also worse then Player Z who they lose to.

They are also very likely all near the same skill level, or the matchups are incorrect, or they aren't playing the matchups correctly, etc.

Matchups don't determine everything, but they do determine what happens when both players play correctly, from the info we know.

6. As long as the change makes the matchup more balanced, it will accomplish something positive.

Removing the grab release from the Marth / Lucas matchup will most certainly do this, and you know this right?

 

[Flayl]

Their power was a LARGE reason, and still is (because we can minimilaze the randomness pretty easily, due to research.)

No. If that were so only a group of items would be turned off instead of all of them.

 

[Zankoku]

Items were turned off in Melee because people didn't like it, and it was eventually accepted everywhere because it really sucks when you can't do anything about an explosive capsule/crate/barrel spawning on top of your lasting attack.

They were turned off in Brawl because most tournament players still don't like playing with them.

Yeah, items is a case of being turned off due to majority preference on rules.

The "Ice Climbers can't use projectiles against Ganondorf" thing is sounding dangerously close to making a rule out of "I will beat you with one arm tied behind my back".

 

[Ghostbone]

No. If that were so only a group of items would be turned off instead of all of them.

A group that encompasses almost all of them though.

 

[Alphicans]

1. A truly even matchup determines quite possibly everything. This is not your stance, and I don't expect to reach one, so eh.

2. Being closer to true balance = more balance = better skill differentiation, would it not?

Yes and no. The game has balance among the top and high tier. Tournaments determine who is the better player, and the best players typically use high/top tiers. To an extent I do view character choice a skill. Characters have weaknesses, and some lower tier characters can exploit higher tier character's weaknesses, so they do have their uses.

My main question to you is why does full cast balance mean anything? People can just pick a new, better character to play. This point is actually valid now that MK is banned.

3. More Efficently(This definition makes more sense given the situation) -
Preforming or functioning in a better manner then the way it was before.

Define better, then tell me why it's better. Also keep in mind what I said previously, because it applies.

4. I am not saying the matchup definition will be perfect, but that given we can trust the validity of our own community, as long as it is more balanced then before, we have accomplished something.

What have we accomplished if we did this? Limiting CGs won't help ganon at all. Even if we banned ICs usage vs ganon, he'd still be the worst character in the game by a long shot. You'd need way more complicated rules to balance out the game, which leads to my point about doing more harm than good in terms of competitive.

5. In that scenario, Player X is better then Player Y who they beat. They are also worse then Player Z who they lose to.

They are also very likely all near the same skill level, or the matchups are incorrect, or they aren't playing the matchups correctly, etc.

Matchups don't determine everything, but they do determine what happens when both players play correctly, from the info we know.

I am not sure how much match-ups tell us. It seems everyday some top player is playing a match-up "wrong." I am starting to HIGHLY doubt how credible the community is for determining match-ups. I think if we were right about match-ups, dumb things wouldn't happen to good players on a very consistent basis.

6. As long as the change makes the matchup more balanced, it will accomplish something positive.

Again it is unclear if it would. Why would it do this. Your "proof" seems to be that balance = better at determining skill, but there is already balance, and picking a character is a skill in the game.

Removing the grab release from the Marth / Lucas matchup will most certainly do this, and you know this right?

Yes, so marth counters them. If you play a character Lucas beats, you can counter marth. That is a skill. Playing multiple characters is a skill. It's unfortunate for the lucas main that DK and marth mains will always beat them, but other people who don't main them can use them as a resource. By getting rid of GR infinites, we're limiting the need for picking up new characters, which is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion.

Responses in bold.