Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[AlcyoNite]

That's why Brawl is fun, you have to learn to avoid those sort af attacks...but yes infinites are annoying. I can see why someone would get very frustrated!

But then again its just a stragety, and is probably just as "cheap" as some of Ike's moves. If infinites were banned, then why not ban other cheap moves that other characters possess?

If Ike is cheap, then I'm a monkey's uncle ... -_-"

Oh no! The scrubs are out in force today, aren't they?

Agreed.

 

[Patsie]

I'm sorry, I said "winning most tournaments" when? I said "when you cannot win unless you play as said characters", and not necessarily in tournaments. Some things do not requires countless tournament results as evidence to ban.

Alright, so we don't need to look at tournament results. Fine, we use a different standard.

How come we banned JigglyPuff's rising pound stall? I don't remember at any single point in this game's history that someone had to play as Jiggs to win, do you? Jiggs doesn't have lasers, but he still has a banned tactic, right?

So we ban things that don't necessarily have to do with only playing a certain character to win, as evidenced by JP's rising pound stall. So we clearly don't just use the standard you're talking about.

Also, were you around 7 years ago? Can you say for certain that several tournaments were not won or at least decided in part (like, placings) through misc. stalling tactics, which eventually lead to a universal stall ban?

No, I wasn't around, and I'd appreciate some feedback from people who were to tell me how big of a factor stalling was in placings.

But, I assumed, just as you did (Quote: "I was not around when stalling was first banned. I can only assume they saw it a few times, deemed "too good" and immediately banned it. The community was young and had not yet experienced stalling winning matches and thus didn't ban it on principle, but people abused stages and characters and it was, thus, banned."), that it was so bad that we never had to see it get to that level. I think it's a fair assumption that we both made, and my only point was that it didn't completely affect the tournament scene.

A technique doesn't have to actually win entire tournaments. It just has to prove itself capable of doing so. Even with Wobbling, ICs couldn't win entire tournaments. Stalling tactics could, however. It was enough if we could see entire matches being won through stalling tactics that would obviously work on everyone.

We didn't need to wait until they won entire tournaments. Through analyzing the metagame, at this moment in time, ICs cannot win entire tournaments using infinites alone since it's quite easy to separate them.

Let's also not forget that it doesn't just have to be about winning tournaments, it has to be about winning tournaments in such a way it's impossible to combat unless you use the same character. Stalling is impossible to combat sometimes even when you use the same character. IC infiniting isn't even broken enough that they win every single matchup atm, let alone in such a way we're forced to all play ICs to even stand a chance of winning.

Really? How are you making that claim when you admitted that you weren't around during the time? If it is possible that a tournament could be won by stalling alone, why hasn't it been documented? I'm just saying that Wobbling never won a tournament alone (empirically), but neither did stalling. You can't pass it off as an impossible tactic to beat if I can't for infinites.

And where's this documentation of where we decided that stalling completely broke the metagame? I don't know what analysis you're talking about. But I guess it doesn't matter, because your real claim is in that last paragraph I quoted.

You didn't respond to what I said, first off. The "don't get hit by lasers" strategy is possible. Probable? No. But neither is "don't get grabbed," just on a smaller scale. You're passing it off as impossible because of the speed of the lasers, but with certain jumps/spotdodges/etc, you can avoid the laser spam and do damage. BUT EVEN IF WE DISREGARD FOX: We banned JP's rising pound, and you can't refute that. You can't say it was impossible for JP to do more damage to you without you being able to react, because he doesn't have lasers. Yet his move is still banned. It didn't have to do with being impossible. It had to do with being unfair. And, as I've said for the millionth time, I understand that it's not easy for the ICs to be at the point where they can infinite you. But that doesn't suddenly justify the infinite. It just means it's unlikely to be seen often in tournament play.

"Don't get grabbed" is possible. "Never take more damage than your opponent" is virtually impossible, especially when the opponent is Fox in Melee because of the speed of his lasers.

"Virtually impossible"... Haha, I like how you realized that it's still, in some remote sense, possible, so you just decided to slap on the virtually part to try to justify your claim. I wrote about this above. It's not completely impossible, but it's unlikely. Just like not getting grabbed once during a match is unlikely. Go figure.

But even if you don't think that's true, as I said, we banned JP's rising pound stall and that character doesn't have anything that makes it impossible for you to damage him first. So you need to come up with a new argument.

Now, onto you completely ignoring what other people say:

I said this:

Alright, I understand that the intent of this is based on computer issues and glitches. Mind you - I don't know why you're posting this because he's mentioning mainly glitches - but if you're considering stalling a glitch, then infinites certainly fall under that.

Unless you are blind, you see that a) I understand what a glitch is (computer issue, etc), b) I don't get why the poster was calling stalling a glitch, and c) I would call an infinite a glitch just because it goes along with what he's saying.

You say:

Stop calling anything you don't like a glitch. "Oh, the developers didn't foresee this being usable in this way! Glitch!" - Not the definition of "glitch".

WHICH MEANS: You COMPLETELY ignored what I wrote and posted inane garbage to bash me. You quote stuff and then reply regardless of the contents of the quote; you assume what a paragraph says after quickly glancing at it and make your reply. THAT is why I don't like arguing against you.

Here's another example. I said:

Chaingrabs aren't available to all players if we really think about it. Sure, he means that, if all players have access to DDD, then it's fine. But we play the game using certain preset choices of character reference, so we don't really have equal access to performing the same with each and every character. The very nature of infinites (who they can be done by/to) is intensely limiting.

NOTE:

Sure, he means that, if all players have access to DDD, then it's fine.

You said:

Chaingrabbing is available to all players if they pick the characters that can chaingrab. When Sirlin says "available to all players", he means regardless of if you're P1 or P2

...

Alright, you're clearly in the wrong here (because you can see that I anticipated both arguments and you just ignored them and responded anyway), but you're going to post some silly response devoid of reasoning as a smokescreen to attempt to prove that you're right. That's another reason why no one likes arguing against you.

Also: How can you possibly argue that you respond to every argument with reason when, on numerous occasions, you've done the following:
"

Stuff.

Two-word 'witty' response by Yuna to a paragraph-long argument."


You don't respond to what people have to say. You have only one objective: to make people think you're right, and you will not budge from that objective no matter how much you have to cloud the actual truth.

That, Yuna, is why people hate arguing with you.

 

[Yuna]

Editing. *10 shotalinks*

 

[Zankoku]

Hey, you're right, I'm all for unbanning stalling tactics since they haven't been proven stupid and broken. Who's up for choosing Fox and holding Down+B with me for eight minutes? Friend code on left.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh my god, Yuna, please don't make another post like that. I was so confused when I didn't see everything in a quote box; after getting used to your posts having multiquote boxes everywhere, I couldn't read one without.

 

[KMB23]

So don't get grabbed. Idiot.

 

[Matador]

So because it's hard and "not fun", we should ban it? It's kinda broken... it's just not broken enough. It limits the viability of 5 characters, it doesn't force us to play as D3.


So what? How do you know Yoshi, Ganondorf and Captain Falcon aren't being eliminated early from tourneys because they just flat-out suck? I say we should ban everyone but those three because it clearly takes more skill to play as the worst characters in the game who are easily gimped!

I mean, I wanna stand a chance at winning as Yoshi! I wanna have a chance of winning with every character in the game! I say that I should be able to ban every single character who's a bad matchup against my characters!

Some characters have horrendous matchups because of chaingrabs and whatnot. Deal with it. D3's chaingrab on Bowser is not a real infinite, BTW. For one thing, this allows him to trip. For another, this means he can eventually run out of stage and that it doesn't work anywhere on the stage. For yet another thing, I think that everyone but DK can eventually DI out at 200% or so. Of course, you'll probably be dead by then, but that means that D3 can't continue chaingrabbing you past that, hence, obviously not an infinite. So count that out. That makes this 4 characters you can complain about.


"Anything that affects tourney results should be banned"? "Anything that creates a 10-0 matchup should be banned"?

Seriously, most fighting games have matchups that are by all intents and purposes unwinnable because of a inherent flaw in a certain character (the flaw here is that these five do not slide far enough to be able to DI out of D3's infinite chaingrab). We do not ban things because they're "unfair" or because they gimp a select few characters. We ban them if they break the game itself, if the game becomes unwinnable unlesss you use the same strategy (chaingrab as D3) or as a select few characters on which the strategy doesn't work.

D3's killer chaingrab works on 5 characters. This is not enough to ban it.





The opinions of random people <<<< The opinions of SBR and people who know how Competitive gaming works.


Horrible, horrible. Those 5 have bad matchups against D3. Ban now! Again, it's not broken enough to ban. We do not ban things to ensure the Competitive viability of every character. We ban things when they force you to play as the character to win.


1) 5 matchups out of 705 (match done by someone else)
2) Then D3's chaingrab on Bowser does not count and thus, 4 characters.


And this is the crux of the matter. You think that if something completely gimps a character, one must ban it. The Competitive gaming communities of fighting games worldwide do not. It's not enough. Tournaments are not about every single character standing a chance at winning be it through general suckiness of specific matchups where one can be infinited because of special attributes (trust me, there are plenty of games where certain powerful combos are only possible on certain characters).


At least a DK can win against a D3 if he just works hard enough. Possible, not probable.



DeDeDe is sloooooow. Just outcamp him (and approach sparingly and safely). The defensive options in the game allows you to shieldgrab better... but the same defensive options can also allow you to camp to prevent getting grabbed.



No it wouldn't. You claiming it would and you thinking it would does not make it so.

We do not ban things depending on who it affects, as opposed to some people in this thread who have alluded to that it'd be OK to have infinites on the Bottom Tiers because they suck anyway. If there was a way to infinite Snake and Meta-Knight, the Competitive Smash community would let out an evil laugh and start doing it.


But their matchup against DeDeDe makes them bad characters. It's a part of their metagame.


An infinite doesn't do any of the things Sirlin said. Also, infinites to do not prevent gameplay anymore than combos do. They just last longer.


Chaingrabbing is available to all players if they pick the characters that can chaingrab. When Sirlin says "available to all players", he means regardless of if you're P1 or P2.



Life isn't fair. Things are not banend as soon as they're deemed unfair (or "cheap"). They're banned if they break the game. And since you yourself just conceeded that they currently do not, then we will not ban them.



No, DeDeDe would not be top. Because, among others, Toon Link can still destroy him... and he can't infinite Toon Link.


No, it's not like banning the characters. People are free to use said characters. They just won't be able to win against D3 as them. We do not ban things to make things "more fair". After all, then we'd have to ban Pit since he's such a great camper and some characters get destroyed by camping.

I'm going to refute your post paragraph by paragraph because of its length, please reply to my points.

1.) I said nothing about it being "not fun", because apparently that's not what competitive gaming is about. The fact is, these 5 have to play a near flawless game against ddd after ddd counterpicks just to even contend in tourney play because of infinites. Playing to not get grabbed by ddd has no clear-cut strategy. ddd has range, projectiles, and an incredible grab range. The infinite made these bad matchups impossible to win if these competitors are of equal skill. But hey, that's not why we ban right? It's only 5 characters, correct? Screw them huh? They weren't good anyway.....alright.

This is the equivalent of saying killing is fine as long as it doesn't affect government officials, celebrities, famous people, etc. As long as "important" people are around, and it doesn't affect the more widely used characters, then it's perfectly fine, as it doesn't affect tourney results.

2.)Yoshi, CF, and Ganon have many bad matchups. These are matchups that they could win, but it's not likely. Those 5 have something worse than a bad matchup. Vs ddd for those 5 would require nothing less than perfect play throughout an entire tournament of counterpicks. This is due to a tech that will eventually ban itself because those 5 won't be ever seen in tourneys. Just telling people who main those 5 to "Deal with it" is ultimately just telling them to main a different character. There's no reason at all to use anyone that's vulnerable to infinites. BTW, I call them infinites for lack of a better word. It's not a CG because CGs apparently end and can be influenced. The "CGs" on bowser and DK can't be influenced until said percents, which pretty much = death anyways. They just lack a killing move linked to the grab at the end. I'm sure that doesn't change anything in the matchup.

3.)So, again, just screw these 5 right? We won't ban it because that's not how we roll.

4.)So what's this forum for? You guys make all of the decisions and we "random people" can't contribute? Oligarchy much?

5.)When does your definition of "broken enough" kick in? One extreme is stalling, okay I agree. But where do you draw the line on what's broken enough? 5 characters can't be used in tournament play because of 1 tech from 1 character? Is that ddd infinite/CG so important that it outweighs the importance of 5 other characters on the roster? It may not force everyone to use ddd, but it forces people to stray from those 5 (7 if you count ness and lucas). That's an entire fifth of the cast not playable due to 2 infinites. We can't just ban them?

6.)So you ARE just saying "screw those characters"! Honestly, if this were a combo of some sort instead of a grab, then I wouldn't mind in the least. ddd's infinites would take a fool to screw up, and have much less of a chance for you to even get an opportunity to move. The CGs of melee or infinites in MvC2 are much more difficult to pull off and require much more time and practice.

The difficulty of these combos also affects how often they're seen done flawlessly in the tournament scene. Chu Dat's ICs were great despite IC's spot on the tier list because there were very few who could perform with him as he could. Same with Taj and mewtwo. No doubt it required much time, practice, skill, and dedication to play like them; all components of competitive gaming. ddd's infinite can probably be done by every ddd main at this point. THAT will affect the tournament scene most definitely because the skill that Chudat and Taj had with the ICs and Mewtwo have been boiled down to nothing but a variation of Z + down. Barely any timing, room for error, and it doesn't end until you're dead, or can be with one attack. Does the competitive scene reward this kind of play? That's definitely what it seems like by keep them legal.

7.) Much less than "not probable". If the DK and ddd are of even remotely equal skill, do you honestly believe that the DK has much of a chance? What's DK going to do? Kill his nana?

8.) Okay, so we camp ddd...all game. Mario and luigi cannot attack ddd without fear of being shield grabbed. None of their attacks have that much range aside from their projectiles. Bowser and DK don't have projectiles outside of Bowser's neutral B if you even want to call that a projectile. ddd is also just as fast as they are, so how can they even hope to get an attack in without being shield grabbed? The only person that could even try to do that is Samus, but that matchup is still terrible without the infinite, tacking it on to her list of cons would make this matchup worse than bad. And this is one ddd, what about the others in your pool that'll counterpick him, then the winners and losers brackets. They'd be foolish not to, they're playing to win. How do these characters even hope to contend in tournaments? At least Bowser and Mewtwo had a chance, just a slew of bad matchups because of THEIR flaws, not the exploits of the others.

Also, the 5's vulnerability to this technique is not a flaw. Only one character affects this and that's because of an exploit. No other characters in the entire game can infinite them. Plenty of character could combo Bowser easily in melee. That was a flaw in his design, as he's heavy and large. If all 5 of these characters of varying weights are vulnerable to 1 character's 1 technique, it's not a flaw in their design, it's an exploit on that character's part.

9.) Okay, so if we woke up tomorrow and Snake and MK became vulnerable to ddd's infinite, do you honestly think that their tournament records wouldn't be affected? I have no doubt that the community would "start doing it" because that's what competitive gamers do, we get every advantage possible to win. ddd will move to top tier because he'll no longer have as much of a problem with Snakes and MKs, and everyone would be fine with it? Snake and MK have just been put in the same boat with the others. Mains of those characters will have to go through hordes of ddd counterpicks that will ultimately win the majority of the matchups. This would be the trend if no AT or strategy were found to stop this. As I said, CGs are fine with me. It's the infinites that are capable of 0 to death combos that I think should be banned from tournament play.

10.) I don't know what to say to this post. You're actually accepting that these perfectly fine characters are now BAD characters because of this tech. That they're not logical choices for tournament play because they were unlucky enough to be vulnerable to this infinite, despite their potential to contend with the entire cast and actually win tournaments. Their entire relevance in tournaments has been reduced to nothing because they have one bad matchup because of an easily exiled tech. This matchup is not bad. Bad matchups are Mario vs G&W, or DK vs MK. But ddd vs these 5 would require FLAWLESS play to even have a chance at winning. This is an infinite, not a combo that does alot of damage. This is an attack where 1 grab = ultimately 1 stock. There's no reason why this should be allowed if there's no reasonable strategy to not get grabbed.

11.) Combos end, infinites don't. Combos require time, skill, practice, and are more than often vulnerable to everyone. Infinites require a grab and understanding of the ddd infinite vid which is more than simple. Combos aren't insta-wins, as they require setups and strategy moreso than a grab. I have no doubt that I could land a grab on any given pro. Infinites only require that one grab to give you TOO much of an advantage. Infinites DO limit competitive play, those 5 won't see the tourney scene nearly as much as they should.

12.) Okay, so "just don't pick those 5 and you won't have to worry about it" is what you're saying? By this post, you're telling mains of those 5 that they really don't have a chance and can pick an infinite character just like my opponent.

13.) So that's what it boils down to right? The forever regurgitated adage that "life isn't fair".

14.) And why wouldn't he? Snake and MK have bad matchups just like ddd, that doesn't stop them from being top tier. ddd would be one of the few character that doesn't have a bad matchup against either Snake or MK. The only other character that really has this is DK, which ddd can infinite. All characters should have a reasonable chance at winning against any other character. Those 5 don't have that against ddd. Again, if you can offer me up a method more in detail than "don't get grabbed", I'll be on my way.

15.) How can they use the characters if they'll be constantly counterpicked by a ddd, bringing an impossible matchup? You just said yourself that they won't be able to beat ddd. They won't move anywhere in tourneys because they can't move anywhere in tourneys. The infinite will stay while the characters will go, there's no other way around that.

And if you don't ban to make things "more fair", then why do you ban? Certainly banning stages, stalling, freeze glitching, and wobbling in some tournaments was to make things "more fair" for everyone else.

And I hope you're not suggesting that dealing with a campy pit is even remotely as difficult as dealing with ddd's infinites. For one thing, there are viable strategies for dealing with campy pits, and there's room for error. A mistake means damage there, a mistake mean a stock against ddd. They're completely different situations.

When you respond to this, please don't label my quotes with "stuff", as I'd like to know exactly which words you're refuting. I want you to prove me wrong, I want to know my main since 64 still has a chance in tournaments. And if there's a way around ddd's infinite, I won't mind it in the least. The way I see it, this is an unavoidable strategy that gives too much power to one party.

 

[Patsie]

Hey, you're right, I'm all for unbanning stalling tactics since they haven't been proven stupid and broken. Who's up for choosing Fox and holding Down+B with me for eight minutes? Friend code on left.

How about you get your head out of your ***?

Seriously, stop flaming, or at least read the argument first. You just look like an idiot.

I am saying stalling is banned for completely legitimate reasons that do not fall under ANY of Yuna's justifications for banning something. I am proving her wrong by using it as an example, because at this point, Yuna can't uphold her argument unless she also claims that stalling was wrongly banned.

I am saying both infinites and stalling should be banned because they are unfair and break gameplay.

Keep up, chap, and you might learn something.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Hey, you're right, I'm all for unbanning stalling tactics since they haven't been proven stupid and broken. Who's up for choosing Fox and holding Down+B with me for eight minutes? Friend code on left.

Sure thing. Fox Only, No Items, Hyrule Temple.

 

[Zankoku]

Proving HIM wrong, you mean.

You're saying that infinites should be banned for the same reason stalling is banned, to which the counter was that infinites haven't been proven broken, to which your counter to that was that stalling wasn't proven broken either. Since nothing is proven broken, I think it's better to not ban anything rather than ban everything. : P

What, is my logic wrong? Did I add 1 and 1 and get 5 somewhere?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sure thing. Fox Only, No Items, Hyrule Temple.

I C Wut U Did Thar!

 

[Zankoku]

Sure thing. Fox Only, No Items, Hyrule Temple.

Contrary to popular belief, it's just Temple. Hyrule is the "world" location, sorta like how Onett has Eagleland behind it and stuff.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Contrary to popular belief, it's just Temple. Hyrule is the "world" location, sorta like how Onett has Eagleland behind it and stuff.

Nooo

Spoiler

ooooo!!!

 

[Miller]

Im pretty sure Yuna is a guy.

And honestly, your just another scrub who thinks a tactic that he cannot beat should be banned. Get over yourself.

 

[Yuna]

How come we banned JigglyPuff's rising pound stall? I don't remember at any single point in this game's history that someone had to play as Jiggs to win, do you? Jiggs doesn't have lasers, but he still has a banned tactic, right?

What do lasers have to do with it? All Jiggz has to do is get ahead by 1% and then infinite pound her way to a stalled victory... unless, of course, she's facing someone with a laser, at which point she has to get ahead by a stock to be safe.

So we ban things that don't necessarily have to do with only playing a certain character to win, as evidenced by JP's rising pound stall. So we clearly don't just use the standard you're talking about.

See above.

But, I assumed, just as you did (Quote: "I was not around when stalling was first banned. I can only assume they saw it a few times, deemed "too good" and immediately banned it. The community was young and had not yet experienced stalling winning matches and thus didn't ban it on principle, but people abused stages and characters and it was, thus, banned."), that it was so bad that we never had to see it get to that level. I think it's a fair assumption that we both made, and my only point was that it didn't completely affect the tournament scene.

It clearly affected the tournament scene. Entire sets were decided by who could stall the best depending on character and stage. The scene realized that stalling tactics were unstoppable for a lot of characters (depending partially on the stage) and thus put rules in place. So what if no one managed to win a tournament using stalling tactics (if that indeed never happened)?

It was clearly demonstrated that it was possible to do so and that you would be unstoppable in doing so since one could not touch you. You weren't even given a chance of fighting once the staller was ahead by even 1%.

No, this does not mean that the IC's infinites have to be banned. Because even in theory-fighter, their meta-game at this moment isn't good enough to completely destroy everyone with their infinites. They still have to grab you first. Also, they're very vulnerable to separation and Nana is prone to just die. At the present time, ICs cannot, as far as we know, completely destroy everyone else in tournaments, at which point we'd ban it.

If you want to ban IC's infinites, show us how broken they are. Learn how to do them, then show us how easily ICs can grab someone and win with it. They still have to grab you first... and Nana has to be around Popo... and desynched.

Anyway, it's not just enough to win with it, it has to be evident that there's no way of beating it bar the ICs screwing up monumentally as well. Something really, really good does not get banned, only when it's utterly broken (play ICs or you will lose).

How many times must I say this?

Really? How are you making that claim when you admitted that you weren't around during the time? If it is possible that a tournament could be won by stalling alone, why hasn't it been documented? I'm just saying that Wobbling never won a tournament alone (empirically), but neither did stalling. You can't pass it off as an impossible tactic to beat if I can't for infinites.

So how the hell are you going to beat Fox gaining a lead and then running around in a circle on Hyrule Temple? Seriously, how? Even if you're Fox himself, the other Fox will have a head start so you've have to try to nail him with lasers. But that won't work if he's ahead by 50% or so because that'd take many lasers and for each laser fired, his head start will increase even more... not to mention the fact that you're forced to play as Fox since he's the fastest character in the game.

Infinite Rising Pound. What are you going to do? You'll be force to go Jiggz and get to them by Infinite Rising pounding yourself. Peach infinite Wall-bombing on certain stages (like Pokémon Stadium). What can you possibly do? (all of this is Melee, of course) Sonic Homing stalling below the stage. What are you going to do?

Also, do you really think everything has been documented? What, do you have a secret unknown History Book of Smash where ever single event in Smash history is documented and if it ain't in there, then it couldn't have happened? Also, read above.

You didn't respond to what I said, first off. The "don't get hit by lasers" strategy is possible. Probable? No.

Then Fox won't just spam lasers. He'll try to approach. The second he gets ahead by just 1%, he'll just run away. This isn't like the ICs infinite where there are requirements. All Fox has to do is get a lead and then he's already won. The ICs have to actually grab you first with Nana right next to Popo. There are no requirements. Get one hit and you win... against everyone.

But neither is "don't get grabbed," just on a smaller scale. You're passing it off as impossible because of the speed of the lasers, but with certain jumps/spotdodges/etc, you can avoid the laser spam and do damage.

I'm sorry, what? You can dodge lasers and do damage at the same time? Yeah, if he's an idiot. Shorthop double laser all the way 'til one of them hits. Also, read above.

BUT EVEN IF WE DISREGARD FOX: We banned JP's rising pound, and you can't refute that. You can't say it was impossible for JP to do more damage to you without you being able to react, because he doesn't have lasers. Yet his move is still banned. It didn't have to do with being impossible. It had to do with being unfair. And, as I've said for the millionth time, I understand that it's not easy for the ICs to be at the point where they can infinite you. But that doesn't suddenly justify the infinite. It just means it's unlikely to be seen often in tournament play.

Read above. 1% ahead and Jiggz won. ICs have requirements and the match wasn't over the second ICs grabbed you. They'll have to kill you eventually and then you have the chance to try to turn it around. With Jiggz' Rising Pound, you do not.

But even if you don't think that's true, as I said, we banned JP's rising pound stall and that character doesn't have anything that makes it impossible for you to damage him first. So you need to come up with a new argument.

1% ahead and Jiggz auto-wins. That's bad.

Unless you are blind, you see that a) I understand what a glitch is (computer issue, etc), b) I don't get why the poster was calling stalling a glitch, and c) I would call an infinite a glitch just because it goes along with what he's saying.

You mean the part where you said "computer issues"? What does that even mean? Also, I misinterpreted you or whatever. Wow. How horrible.

It's like you're unable to "win" by using real arguments so you try to pinpoint even the tiniest mistake I make, even when it really doesn't even help your 'cause. It's like saying "Hah! You just missed your bus!" as if that'd somehow make your argument more credible.

WHICH MEANS: You COMPLETELY ignored what I wrote and posted inane garbage to bash me. You quote stuff and then reply regardless of the contents of the quote; you assume what a paragraph says after quickly glancing at it and make your reply. THAT is why I don't like arguing against you.

Read above. Skimming can do that, especially when what you write is weird ("computer issues"). I apologize for the mistake, though. But you're blowing this way out of hand.

And, hey, you got really upset by that? You call that bashing? At least I haven't gone around calling people idiots (in this thread).

Here's another example. I said:

NOTE:

You said:
...

Alright, you're clearly in the wrong here (because you can see that I anticipated both arguments and you just ignored them and responded anyway), but you're going to post some silly response devoid of reasoning as a smokescreen to attempt to prove that you're right. That's another reason why no one likes arguing against you.

Only, what you said is not what Sirlin said.

You: "Chaingrabs are OK if both players have access to DeDeDe... ... blah blah, chaingrabs are limited since not all characters can do it" (i.e., the same character)
Me: "Chaingrabs are OK as long as both players can choose to do them regardless of controller port."

Clearly not the same thing. What Sirlin said has nothing to do with character choice but with controller port choice or "Facing left vs. Facing right" (some things cannot be done facing left and vice versa in some glitchy games), regardless of if you're both using the same character and performing the technique/combo/whatever with pefect timing.

 

[Patsie]

Im pretty sure Yuna is a guy.

And honestly, your just another scrub who thinks a tactic that he cannot beat should be banned. Get over yourself.

ur awful at life LOL and prolly have nvr been laid u should do sumthin other than play ssb haha cuz u suck at it NEwayz

See where assertions get us?

And I know, I just get confused sometimes because of the name.

 

[Patsie]

Proving HIM wrong, you mean.

You're saying that infinites should be banned for the same reason stalling is banned, to which the counter was that infinites haven't been proven broken, to which your counter to that was that stalling wasn't proven broken either. Since nothing is proven broken, I think it's better to not ban anything rather than ban everything. : P

What, is my logic wrong? Did I add 1 and 1 and get 5 somewhere?

No, that logic would be fine. But you were clearly sarcastic, and I was taking the hint that you were trying to poke fun at something I never suggested.

Unless you wanted to make fun of yourself? If then, sorry, I guess.

 

[Zankoku]

Then let it be so. Since I'm physically incapable of being that patient, I'll probably just SD my remaining stocks once it becomes clear the tactic is unbeatable, but I suppose that's all the sooner we'll have tournament proof that the tactic is unbeatable.

 

[The_NZA]

Then let it be so. Since I'm physically incapable of being that patient, I'll probably just SD my remaining stocks once it becomes clear the tactic is unbeatable, but I suppose that's all the sooner we'll have tournament proof that the tactic is unbeatable.

But what he's arguing, and I sympathise as a Ness player, is that these things will only be noticed in late game tourneys (like if it happens in Winners finals or losers finals or grand finals). But lets say its the first game in winners, and as a Ness player I play against a marth who spends the whole game doing the grab release infinite. No one will hear my plight, even if the plight has just reasoning to exist. This is a way of preempting the scenario which will occur many times but will go unrecognized. You very well know that Ness/Lucas/DK aren't played that often compared to the likes of snake and metaknight. If these infinites worked on those two characters we wouldn't need to preempt this argument. We could actually wait and see if it "actually affects things" because the scenario would involve a popular character which means it could be replicated in every finals match. Thats why the "lets wait and see" argument doesn't make sense. The injustice HAS happened and will continue to happen but it will go unnoticed. Before it becomes recognized as a potential ban, these characters will have already died since people will stop playing them.

 

[Zankoku]

But lets say its the first game in winners, and as a Ness player I play against a marth who spends the whole game doing the grab release infinite. No one will hear my plight, even if the plight has just reasoning to exist.

I'm not sure why they wouldn't pay attention to it, but I think a decent gauge of how broken it is can be made whether it's near the end of the bracket or in the beginning.

 

[The_NZA]

I agree with W!TH.

Just think about it. Our rules say that you hear the counterpicked stage BEFORE you pick your charater. There is NO REASON why you can not ban infinites, and say the reason why you can do so is because "dont get grabbed" is legitimate advice but then go off and ban Bridge of Eldin. You hear about the stage before, you can either
a. play your usual character and dont get grabbed
b. play a character with a distinct advantaged matchup (since they can CG to death).

Its either a legitimate advantage/perk of the character you chose (and the counterpicked stage you chose) or its a broken strategy since it causes deaths with very little ability to respond. Pick your **** choice and stick to it, Yuna.

*EDIT*

Ankoku, they wouldn't hear about it because No one pays attention to the first match of a tourney.

 

[Yuna]

1.) I said nothing about it being "not fun", because apparently that's not what competitive gaming is about. The fact is, these 5 have to play a near flawless game against ddd after ddd counterpicks just to even contend in tourney play because of infinites. Playing to not get grabbed by ddd has no clear-cut strategy. ddd has range, projectiles, and an incredible grab range. The infinite made these bad matchups impossible to win if these competitors are of equal skill. But hey, that's not why we ban right? It's only 5 characters, correct? Screw them huh? They weren't good anyway.....alright.

This is the equivalent of saying killing is fine as long as it doesn't affect government officials, celebrities, famous people, etc. As long as "important" people are around, and it doesn't affect the more widely used characters, then it's perfectly fine, as it doesn't affect tourney results.

No, it is not. This is not the real world. These are not crimes being committed. These are just really, really good "combos" (technically infinite chaingrabs)... on five characters.

2.)Yoshi, CF, and Ganon have many bad matchups. These are matchups that they could win, but it's not likely. Those 5 have something worse than a bad matchup. Vs ddd for those 5 would require nothing less than perfect play throughout an entire tournament of counterpicks. This is due to a tech that will eventually ban itself because those 5 won't be ever seen in tourneys. Just telling people who main those 5 to "Deal with it" is ultimately just telling them to main a different character. There's no reason at all to use anyone that's vulnerable to infinites. BTW, I call them infinites for lack of a better word. It's not a CG because CGs apparently end and can be influenced. The "CGs" on bowser and DK can't be influenced until said percents, which pretty much = death anyways. They just lack a killing move linked to the grab at the end. I'm sure that doesn't change anything in the matchup.

They could win... if the opponent was either worse than them or just plays reaaaaally badly. It doesn't require perfect play to not get grabbed. Heck, spotdodges and rolls have so many invincibility frames now, it's pretty hard to get grabbed. And you can sacrifice yourself. If you think he's gonna grab you, spotdodge it. If he instead went for a Smash for mixupping, yes, you'll eat the smash. But at least you won't get grabbed.

It's a very bad matchup and chances are you probably won't win.

3.)So, again, just screw these 5 right? We won't ban it because that's not how we roll.

Pretty much.

4.)So what's this forum for? You guys make all of the decisions and we "random people" can't contribute? Oligarchy much?

Because the majority of users here do not even play the game Competitively. Why let Casual players decide the Competitive ruleset? That's not how it works. 10 random people who do not even go to tournaments saying "I think this is how tournaments should be" don't really mean much.

I'm not saying you aren't a Competitive player. I'm saying that if you pick 10 random people from this thread (among those who support a ban on infinites), chances are, the majority of them would be Casuals.

This is why they do not let everyone vote in important matters on Smashboards. Also, this system is not something the Competitive Smash Scene invented, this is something all Competitive fighting game communities have all decided on as a standard.

5.)When does your definition of "broken enough" kick in? One extreme is stalling, okay I agree. But where do you draw the line on what's broken enough? 5 characters can't be used in tournament play because of 1 tech from 1 character? Is that ddd infinite/CG so important that it outweighs the importance of 5 other characters on the roster? It may not force everyone to use ddd, but it forces people to stray from those 5 (7 if you count ness and lucas). That's an entire fifth of the cast not playable due to 2 infinites. We can't just ban them?

Seriously, I've addressed this one jillion times already. It's not important enough. It's only important if it affects a vast majority of the cast and if it creates a situation where the tech in question is a guaranteed win ... by a lot (as in "You can't lose a tournament using this, you just can't")... against a vast majority of the characters.

6.)So you ARE just saying "screw those characters"! Honestly, if this were a combo of some sort instead of a grab, then I wouldn't mind in the least. ddd's infinites would take a fool to screw up, and have much less of a chance for you to even get an opportunity to move. The CGs of melee or infinites in MvC2 are much more difficult to pull off and require much more time and practice.

Only, what if the combo was un-DIable and it was impossible to get out of it? I'm just saying, what if? Would you not mind, anyway? Should we unban walled stages because, hey, those infinites are combos?

The difficulty of these combos also affects how often they're seen done flawlessly in the tournament scene. Chu Dat's ICs were great despite IC's spot on the tier list because there were very few who could perform with him as he could. Same with Taj and mewtwo. No doubt it required much time, practice, skill, and dedication to play like them; all components of competitive gaming. ddd's infinite can probably be done by every ddd main at this point. THAT will affect the tournament scene most definitely because the skill that Chudat and Taj had with the ICs and Mewtwo have been boiled down to nothing but a variation of Z + down. Barely any timing, room for error, and it doesn't end until you're dead, or can be with one attack. Does the competitive scene reward this kind of play? That's definitely what it seems like by keep them legal.

"Ease of use is inconsequential [...] If it's humanly possible to learn to do reliably, then people will learn to do it reliably."

7.) Much less than "not probable". If the DK and ddd are of even remotely equal skill, do you honestly believe that the DK has much of a chance? What's DK going to do? Kill his nana?

Yes, DK is at a huge disadvantage. Wah, wah. It's not enough.

8.) Okay, so we camp ddd...all game. Mario and luigi cannot attack ddd without fear of being shield grabbed. None of their attacks have that much range aside from their projectiles. Bowser and DK don't have projectiles outside of Bowser's neutral B if you even want to call that a projectile. ddd is also just as fast as they are, so how can they even hope to get an attack in without being shield grabbed? The only person that could even try to do that is Samus, but that matchup is still terrible without the infinite, tacking it on to her list of cons would make this matchup worse than bad. And this is one ddd, what about the others in your pool that'll counterpick him, then the winners and losers brackets. They'd be foolish not to, they're playing to win. How do these characters even hope to contend in tournaments? At least Bowser and Mewtwo had a chance, just a slew of bad matchups because of THEIR flaws, not the exploits of the others.

You must never have heard of spacing and auto-canceling. And again, not enough.

Also, the 5's vulnerability to this technique is not a flaw. Only one character affects this and that's because of an exploit. No other characters in the entire game can infinite them. Plenty of character could combo Bowser easily in melee. That was a flaw in his design, as he's heavy and large. If all 5 of these characters of varying weights are vulnerable to 1 character's 1 technique, it's not a flaw in their design, it's an exploit on that character's part.

It is a flaw. They're programmed so that they don't slide away as much from DeDeDe as the rest of the cast from a Dthrow. Why? Because they got screwed over by the physics of the game. This enables DeDeDe to infinite to quasi-infinite (Bowser) them. It's an inherent flaw in the 5 characters in question. After all, DeDeDe can't infinite anyone else due to how they slide and fall after a dthrow.

Also, so what if it's an "exploit"? And what constitutes an exploit, anyway? This is merely using the physics of the game to your advantage. If that automatically an exploit? So comboing is an exploit now?

9.) Okay, so if we woke up tomorrow and Snake and MK became vulnerable to ddd's infinite, do you honestly think that their tournament records wouldn't be affected? I have no doubt that the community would "start doing it" because that's what competitive gamers do, we get every advantage possible to win. ddd will move to top tier because he'll no longer have as much of a problem with Snakes and MKs, and everyone would be fine with it? Snake and MK have just been put in the same boat with the others. Mains of those characters will have to go through hordes of ddd counterpicks that will ultimately win the majority of the matchups. This would be the trend if no AT or strategy were found to stop this. As I said, CGs are fine with me. It's the infinites that are capable of 0 to death combos that I think should be banned from tournament play.

I'm sorry, I said tournament records would not be affected by this when? I merely said we wouldn't magically call for a ban just because it was Snake and Meta-Knight. We wouldn't go against our own policies just because it's Snake and Meta-Knight, despite what people think and claim and guess.

10.) Stuff

"Tournament rules are not written to maximize the number of viable characters, only to limit minimization of such."

11.) Combos end, infinites don't. Combos require time, skill, practice, and are more than often vulnerable to everyone. Infinites require a grab and understanding of the ddd infinite vid which is more than simple. Combos aren't insta-wins, as they require setups and strategy moreso than a grab. I have no doubt that I could land a grab on any given pro. Infinites only require that one grab to give you TOO much of an advantage. Infinites DO limit competitive play, those 5 won't see the tourney scene nearly as much as they should.

"How much skill something takes is inconsequential if when done successfully, it yields the same results as something that requires less 'skill'". And since when is timing not a skill? Chaingrabs and infinites require timing.

Combos require one set-up: The 1st hit has to hit. Of course, there are few true combos in Brawl, but they are there. From the first hit, the rest of the combo is guaranteed. It's the same with an infinite. The requirement is "hit them with the 1st hit".

Infinites limit Competitive play, yes. But they do not limit them enough if it's only for 7 out of 703 matchups.

12.) Okay, so "just don't pick those 5 and you won't have to worry about it" is what you're saying? By this post, you're telling mains of those 5 that they really don't have a chance and can pick an infinite character just like my opponent.

Yes, and?

13.) So that's what it boils down to right? The forever regurgitated adage that "life isn't fair".

Yes, and?

14.) And why wouldn't he? Snake and MK have bad matchups just like ddd, that doesn't stop them from being top tier. ddd would be one of the few character that doesn't have a bad matchup against either Snake or MK. The only other character that really has this is DK, which ddd can infinite. All characters should have a reasonable chance at winning against any other character. Those 5 don't have that against ddd. Again, if you can offer me up a method more in detail than "don't get grabbed", I'll be on my way.

No they shouldn't. Why should they? Life isn't fair? You and me, 5000 dollar moneymatch in singing Madonna's "Material Girl". Whoever hits the most correct notes win.

One of us will undoubtedly beat the other because they're just plain better at singing. You vs. Me in any sport. I suck at sports. You'll most probably win. You vs. Me in mangadrawing. I'm quite good, how good are you? Do you draw manga at all? You vs. Me in Buffy the Vampire Slayer trivia. Have you even seen the show?

Not everyone must at all times have a reasonable chance of winning in every single matchup. There are certain matchups that truly are 10-0. This means that in 10 out of 10 matches, X character should statistically win. Should we ban using certain characters against other characters because of this?

Life isn't fair, Competitive gaming isn't fair, if you want to be able to win in Competitive gaming, sometimes, that means not maining the character(s) you like the most.

You vs. Me, 10,000 dollar MM in Para Para dancing while singing the song we're dancing to. I've got an unusually good sense of coordination and can multi-task better than most females despite being male. Can you? Some people are just naturally better than others at certain things.

Not every matchup can be reasonable.

15.) How can they use the characters if they'll be constantly counterpicked by a ddd, bringing an impossible matchup? You just said yourself that they won't be able to beat ddd. They won't move anywhere in tourneys because they can't move anywhere in tourneys. The infinite will stay while the characters will go, there's no other way around that.

You can use them. You just won't be able to win tournaments as them (if they have DeDeDes who are any good). No one's preventing you from using them. They're just preventing you from winning as them. Not the same thing.

And if you don't ban to make things "more fair", then why do you ban? Certainly banning stages, stalling, freeze glitching, and wobbling in some tournaments was to make things "more fair" for everyone else.

Read above. We do not ban anything that's even remotely "unfair". We do not even ban everything that's "very unfair". We ban things that break the game and severely limit Competitive viability. DeDeDe's infinite on 4 characters does not qualify for these two prerequisites.

And I hope you're not suggesting that dealing with a campy pit is even remotely as difficult as dealing with ddd's infinites. For one thing, there are viable strategies for dealing with campy pits, and there's room for error. A mistake means damage there, a mistake mean a stock against ddd. They're completely different situations.

I'm saying that Ganondorf sucks against Pit on Final Destination because of how they're both programmed. It's a very hard matchup. Not as hard as DK vs. DeDeDe, no, but it's pretty unwinnable as well.

DeDeDe is just a better punisher than most people. Also, read above on why it cannot be banned.

When you respond to this, please don't label my quotes with "stuff", as I'd like to know exactly which words you're refuting. I want you to prove me wrong, I want to know my main since 64 still has a chance in tournaments. And if there's a way around ddd's infinite, I won't mind it in the least. The way I see it, this is an unavoidable strategy that gives too much power to one party.

I label quotes with "stuff" when the quote is 5 or so times longer than my response, either because I've already replied to the stuff in said quote earlier in the same post (or possibly the same page) or because it was just a lot of drivel that didn't really mean much + maybe a little relevant stuff, to which I felt like replying.

How about you get your head out of your ***?

Seriously, stop flaming, or at least read the argument first. You just look like an idiot.

I'm sorry, what did you say, Mr. Pot Kettle?

I am saying stalling is banned for completely legitimate reasons that do not fall under ANY of Yuna's justifications for banning something. I am proving her wrong by using it as an example, because at this point, Yuna can't uphold her argument unless she also claims that stalling was wrongly banned.

I am saying both infinites and stalling should be banned because they are unfair and break gameplay.

My previous post addresses this.

 

[takieddine]

MaxX
Prosmasher Tim

And just another example to ease your mind: Phanna

I think Yuna is right. How difficult a technique is does not influence whether it will be used or not. It will. Someone will perfect it and use it.

Yeah Yuna is right, those videos are an accurate depiction on what those players do on a regular basis, and that those things are very easy to do. I'm sorry sir.

 

[Miller]

ur awful at life LOL and prolly have nvr been laid u should do sumthin other than play ssb haha cuz u suck at it NEwayz

See where assertions get us?

And I know, I just get confused sometimes because of the name.

I'm not the one complaining over a video game, get over yourself

 

[Patsie]

What do lasers have to do with it? All Jiggz has to do is get ahead by 1% and then infinite pound her way to a stalled victory... unless, of course, she's facing someone with a laser, at which point she has to get ahead by a stock to be safe.


See above.


It clearly affected the tournament scene. Entire sets were decided by who could stall the best depending on character and stage. The scene realized that stalling tactics were unstoppable for a lot of characters (depending partially on the stage) and thus put rules in place. So what if no one managed to win a tournament using stalling tactics (if that indeed never happened)?

It was clearly demonstrated that it was possible to do so and that you would be unstoppable in doing so since one could not touch you. You weren't even given a chance of fighting once the staller was ahead by even 1%.

No, this does not mean that the IC's infinites have to be banned. Because even in theory-fighter, their meta-game at this moment isn't good enough to completely destroy everyone with their infinites. They still have to grab you first. Also, they're very vulnerable to separation and Nana is prone to just die. At the present time, ICs cannot, as far as we know, completely destroy everyone else in tournaments, at which point we'd ban it.

If you want to ban IC's infinites, show us how broken they are. Learn how to do them, then show us how easily ICs can grab someone and win with it. They still have to grab you first... and Nana has to be around Popo... and desynched.

Anyway, it's not just enough to win with it, it has to be evident that there's no way of beating it bar the ICs screwing up monumentally as well. Something really, really good does not get banned, only when it's utterly broken (play ICs or you will lose).

How many times must I say this?


So how the hell are you going to beat Fox gaining a lead and then running around in a circle on Hyrule Temple? Seriously, how? Even if you're Fox himself, the other Fox will have a head start so you've have to try to nail him with lasers. But that won't work if he's ahead by 50% or so because that'd take many lasers and for each laser fired, his head start will increase even more... not to mention the fact that you're forced to play as Fox since he's the fastest character in the game.

Infinite Rising Pound. What are you going to do? You'll be force to go Jiggz and get to them by Infinite Rising pounding yourself. Peach infinite Wall-bombing on certain stages (like Pokémon Stadium). What can you possibly do? (all of this is Melee, of course) Sonic Homing stalling below the stage. What are you going to do?

Also, do you really think everything has been documented? What, do you have a secret unknown History Book of Smash where ever single event in Smash history is documented and if it ain't in there, then it couldn't have happened? Also, read above.


Then Fox won't just spam lasers. He'll try to approach. The second he gets ahead by just 1%, he'll just run away. This isn't like the ICs infinite where there are requirements. All Fox has to do is get a lead and then he's already won. The ICs have to actually grab you first with Nana right next to Popo. There are no requirements. Get one hit and you win... against everyone.


I'm sorry, what? You can dodge lasers and do damage at the same time? Yeah, if he's an idiot. Shorthop double laser all the way 'til one of them hits. Also, read above.


Read above. 1% ahead and Jiggz won. ICs have requirements and the match wasn't over the second ICs grabbed you. They'll have to kill you eventually and then you have the chance to try to turn it around. With Jiggz' Rising Pound, you do not.


1% ahead and Jiggz auto-wins. That's bad.


You mean the part where you said "computer issues"? What does that even mean? Also, I misinterpreted you or whatever. Wow. How horrible.

It's like you're unable to "win" by using real arguments so you try to pinpoint even the tiniest mistake I make, even when it really doesn't even help your 'cause. It's like saying "Hah! You just missed your bus!" as if that'd somehow make your argument more credible.


Read above. Skimming can do that, especially when what you write is weird ("computer issues"). I apologize for the mistake, though. But you're blowing this way out of hand.

And, hey, you got really upset by that? You call that bashing? At least I haven't gone around calling people idiots (in this thread).


Only, what you said is not what Sirlin said.

You: "Chaingrabs are OK if both players have access to DeDeDe... ... blah blah, chaingrabs are limited since not all characters can do it" (i.e., the same character)
Me: "Chaingrabs are OK as long as both players can choose to do them regardless of controller port."

Clearly not the same thing. What Sirlin said has nothing to do with character choice but with controller port choice or "Facing left vs. Facing right" (some things cannot be done facing left and vice versa in some glitchy games), regardless of if you're both using the same character and performing the technique/combo/whatever with pefect timing.

Looks like you're falling apart, Yuna.

1) You *specifically* said that you **only** ban things if it makes the game unwinnable unless you pick a certain character. You also said that you can **only** ban things unless it is absolutely **impossible** for someone else to win. That is what you admitted, and I made you admit that for a reason.

So, at that point:

All a player has to do is stay ahead by a 1% to avoid stalling. That means it's not impossible to lose with stalling tactics. They have to meet the same prerequisites that infinites do (ie: Don't get grabbed). People are not forced to pick the same character, JigglyPuff never dominated the tournament scene using stall tactics, you're wrong.

So: picking JP doesn't mean it's an auto-win. It means its an auto-win if and only if JP gets ahead in % and decides to stall. So the game was never unwinnable, you just had to meet certain conditions, which is exactly what I've been saying for infinites.

Face it: the rising pound stall is really, really bad for the game. But it has nothing to do with the two things you listed. It never made it *explicitly* impossible to win. It just made it very improbable. Which is exactly what infinites do.

You've lost this argument, feel free to backtrack, because I know you're going to.

Also, they're very vulnerable to separation and Nana is prone to just die. At the present time, ICs cannot, as far as we know, completely destroy everyone else in tournaments, at which point we'd ban it.

Alright, can you stop making this point? I understand already that it's not easy for the IC infinite to happen. I made that concession pages ago, you're right. But you still haven't shown me exactly what it takes for something to be banned (as evidenced by your lack of a real response to the JP rising pound stall), and once you actually come up with a good definition that actually encompasses all the things we ban today, I will show you why infinites belong in that list.

Basically, I agree, we won't see IC's dominating tournaments because of how hard it is for their ability to actually be set up. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether performing the infinite is fair enough to stay in the game.

So: you've won the point that IC infinites will probably not be banned because they don't affect the game enough. I have tried to show that we don't need things to ruin tournaments to ban them with stalling, which I don't think you've fully refuted yet.

But you haven't actually showed why the infinite itself should be allowed to stay on a theoretical level.

It clearly affected the tournament scene. Entire sets were decided by who could stall the best depending on character and stage. The scene realized that stalling tactics were unstoppable for a lot of characters (depending partially on the stage) and thus put rules in place. So what if no one managed to win a tournament using stalling tactics (if that indeed never happened)?

You said yourself you have absolutely no idea why or how stalling affected the tournament scene because you weren't around, so you don't actually know how badly it affected the scene.

And: what you're saying can and should apply directly to infinites. Given the right conditions (just like stalling, as I said above), infinites could be unstoppable. We can still ban them.

So how the hell are you going to beat Fox gaining a lead and then running around in a circle on Hyrule Temple? Seriously, how? Even if you're Fox himself, the other Fox will have a head start so you've have to try to nail him with lasers. But that won't work if he's ahead by 50% or so because that'd take many lasers and for each laser fired, his head start will increase even more... not to mention the fact that you're forced to play as Fox since he's the fastest character in the game.

What matters is: is it possible to beat Fox on Hyrule without stalling banned? Yes, it is. If the other player somehow manages to stay above him in percentage. Remember, that's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely that one of the lasers won't hit you. All that matters, according to your argument, is that it has to be strictly impossible (not just very unlikely) to be banned. Winning against a staller is unlikely but possible. Winning against an infinite user (say DDD when you're Mario) is unlikely but possible, which is exactly why you said it shouldn't be banned.

Infinite Rising Pound. What are you going to do? You'll be force to go Jiggz and get to them by Infinite Rising pounding yourself. Peach infinite Wall-bombing on certain stages (like Pokémon Stadium). What can you possibly do? (all of this is Melee, of course) Sonic Homing stalling below the stage. What are you going to do?

Maybe you should read why I said. JP, Peach, and Sonic all need to meet a certain condition to get to that level: they need to have a higher % than you. That means it's not an automatic win, it's just a probable win. Just like infinites.

1% ahead and Jiggz auto-wins. That's bad.

Get grabbed against DDD as one of the 5 characters and it's an auto stock-loss. It's not as bad, but it's bad for the same reasons.

And, hey, you got really upset by that? You call that bashing? At least I haven't gone around calling people idiots (in this thread).

I'm not upset. You just made a claim that was wrong, and for the first time in this thread, you've admitted that you were wrong. I appreciate it.

You: "Chaingrabs are OK if both players have access to DeDeDe... ... blah blah, chaingrabs are limited since not all characters can do it" (i.e., the same character)

Look, this point doesn't really matter, I was just getting you to admit that you can be wrong at some level (albiet you do whine a lot when you have to admit you're wrong). What I said was confusing. I understood what Sirlin said, and when I said that both people could choose DDD, I meant that everyone technically has access to infinites because everyone can pick a character that can infinite.





Here's where the meat of the argument is though:

We're at the point where you're still trying to determine how we ban things.

You've said that a) it doesn't depend on tournament performance.
b) The only thing it depends on is where it is strictly impossible to win when entering a match against someone who has a stall. You MUST pick one character if you wish to win.

I have said that we limit JP's rising pound even though it is possible to win by just staying ahead in percents. That directly refutes what you have to say, and now you have to come up with a justification that doesn't involve AUTOMATICALLY winning when you enter the stage. Because, as I've explained, we banned stalling tactics like Wall-Bombs, Rising Pounds, etc, and there is a possibility you can win against those tactics.

Checkmate, come up with a new reason for why we ban things that encompasses these banned tactics or you've lost the argument.

 

[Yuna]

I agree with W!TH.

Just think about it. Our rules say that you hear the counterpicked stage BEFORE you pick your charater. There is NO REASON why you can not ban infinites, and say the reason why you can do so is because "dont get grabbed" is legitimate advice but then go off and ban Bridge of Eldin. You hear about the stage before, you can either
a. play your usual character and dont get grabbed
b. play a character with a distinct advantaged matchup (since they can CG to death).

Its either a legitimate advantage/perk of the character you chose (and the counterpicked stage you chose) or its a broken strategy since it causes deaths with very little ability to respond. Pick your **** choice and stick to it, Yuna.

*EDIT*

Ankoku, they wouldn't hear about it because No one pays attention to the first match of a tourney.

I'm sorry, what? Have you ever been to a tournament? Or even read how Advanced Slob Picks and Stage Banning works? Or do you even possess logic?

You get to ban 2 stages of your choice... before each set starts, which means before the 1st match. If you forfeit bans by banning either just one or none, then you can't magically decide to ban some stages later... especially not after someone picks a stage.

You can't wait, hear "Bridge of Eldin!" and go "I ban Bridge of Eldin!". That's not how it works. Also, even if that works, there are enough stages with walk-off edges that even if you ban 2 of them, there'll still be plenty to choose from to chaingrab you off the stage from.

Read my sign, follow it's advice.

 

[Patsie]

I'm not the one complaining over a video game, get over yourself

The point











Your head

 

[The_NZA]

I just want to make a point.

STOP SAYING ITS ONLY 7 MATCHUPS. Stop labeling matchups at all! It isn't about "Oh this only occurs when A fights C, and thats improbably since A could fight A-Z".

Brawl rules state that when you lose, your opponent has the ability to counterpick the character. That means in every set, there will be at least 1 match, and at most, all 3 matches where you can never be your character. It isn't because it is a disadvantaged matchup, it is because it is a broken matchup. With the general use of marth players, I as a Ness player would never feel comfortable using Ness. Thats pretty rediculous.

 

[Miller]

The point











Your head

Is that all you can come up with, seriously, that's pretty upsetting. You get yourself into a mess and you try to get yourself out of it by shouting nonsense that makes yourself look foolish.

 

[The_NZA]

I'm sorry, what? Have you ever been to a tournament? Or even read how Advanced Slob Picks and Stage Banning works? Or do you even possess logic?

You get to ban 2 stages of your choice... before each set starts, which means before the 1st match. If you forfeit bans by banning either just one or none, then you can't magically decide to ban some stages later... especially not after someone picks a stage.

You can't wait, hear "Bridge of Eldin!" and go "I ban Bridge of Eldin!". That's not how it works. Also, even if that works, there are enough stages with walk-off edges that even if you ban 2 of them, there'll still be plenty to choose from to chaingrab you off the stage from.

Read my sign, follow it's advice.

You thorougly misunderstood my point. Congratulatons.

what I said was, it is hypocritical to allow infinites but then ban walkoff stages. The reason is because once someone counterpicks a stage, you have the ability to choose your character. At that point, you know exactly what you are getting into when you stick to your main and they pick dedede or falco. From there you just have to live by your rules. Dont get Grabbed or you will die. You will have to live by the same constraints infinites leave those 7 characters. Reread what I originally posted Yuna instead of posting 1000 words a minute of complete useless garbage.

 

[Zankoku]

The following will either be banned or not banned, following the principle "it's broken":
Dedede's infinite on 4 characters
Dedede's pseudo-infinite on the 5th character
Ice Climber's infinite chaingrabs (I thought they had these in Melee, even before Wobbles? Whatever.)
Infinite stalling under a stage
Infinite stalling far beyond any point of recovery from a stage
Zero Suit Samus' dsmash infinite on a decent number of characters
Snake's ftilt infinite
Snake's dthrow infinite on the edge of a stage against several taller characters
Pikachu's QAC-footstool infinite
Fox's wallshine infinite
Dedede's chaingrab infinite on all but 14 characters of the cast against a wall
Dedede's chaingrab 0-death on all but 14 characters on a walk-off stage
Marth's grab-release infinite on Ness and Lucas
Meta Knight's grab-release infinite on Lucario (word-of-mouth, I don't know if this one is actually valid)
Falco's laser lock
Mario's fireball lock
Jab lock with: Mario, DK, Meta Knight, Marth, Samus, Kirby, Ness, Squirtle, Link, Yoshi, Sonic, ROB, Wolf, King Dedede

Did I miss anything? If not, please discuss with all of these in mind. : P

 

[St. Viers]

wow, 26 pages of the SAME THING over and over...

@patsie: equating jp's stalling to DDD's chaingrab is a fallacy.

DDD:
affects 4 chars
causes loss of 1 stock
"situation"

JP:
affects all chars
Causes loss of match
same "situational" as DDDs.

If you compare, which seems more severe? JP's stalling.

I know this sounds suck, but something that affects 4-5 chars isn't worth banning, as all you have to do is avoid using those chars for the first match of a set. It means that they become counter pick chars instead of mains...that isn't exactly suck--you can go though and win a tournie using them over 33% of the time, and that's if you were playing people who could viably use DDD.

There, I just saved Yuna a couple seconds of thinking/writing.

Is there a penalty for calling false checkmate, or is the humiliation enough of a punishment?

@Ankoku:

the only things I can see them banning are the stalls, and perhaps IC infinates. The rest are just too situational.

re: stage banning.

The always banned stages are ones with an inherent cheap factor (walls, severe random elements), and the neutral ones were plain, with no random--(in melee, the cloud wasn't really random ^_^). The rest are available for counterpick, and of all the non-banned stages, you can strike 2(?) in brawl before a set.

That means that you can decide which stages are bad ofr you, or disadantage your char.

I'm not sure, but perhaps in brawl, you're allowed to reset once if don't like the random stage, but if it pops up again you have to play it (that was a melee rule)

I don't understand the point of bringing that up though _<

 

[Yuna]

Looks like you're falling apart, Yuna.

Or not.

1) You *specifically* said that you **only** ban things if it makes the game unwinnable unless you pick a certain character. You also said that you can **only** ban things unless it is absolutely **impossible** for someone else to win. That is what you admitted, and I made you admit that for a reason.

Only, I said this way, way, way back in the thread. Like, yesterday or two days ago.

All a player has to do is stay ahead by a 1% to avoid stalling. That means it's not impossible to lose with stalling tactics. They have to meet the same prerequisites that infinites do (ie: Don't get grabbed). People are not forced to pick the same character, JigglyPuff never dominated the tournament scene using stall tactics, you're wrong.

Jigglypuff could dominate the scene using stalling tactics. People used stalling tactics, it was showcased that stalling tactics do not allow the opponent to even touch you (depending on which tactic, of course). Therefore, we didn't have to wait and see each stalling tactic win a tournament before banning it. As long as it's a stalling tactic that can let you run away indefinitely and win a match without your opponent even having a chance to touch you, then it has to be banned. In other words, stalling tactics were deemed by definition broken and were therefore banned.

So: picking JP doesn't mean it's an auto-win. It means its an auto-win if and only if JP gets ahead in % and decides to stall. So the game was never unwinnable, you just had to meet certain conditions, which is exactly what I've been saying for infinites.

Yes. It's unwinnable the second Jiggz gets ahead. It's not that the matchup is inherently broken. It's that whenever Jiggz is ahead, he just won the match... without allowing you even a chance of touching him.

At least with infinites, they're not infinitely running away afterwards, preventing you from even trying to even the match out.

Face it: the rising pound stall is really, really bad for the game. But it has nothing to do with the two things you listed. It never made it *explicitly* impossible to win. It just made it very improbable. Which is exactly what infinites do.

Yes it did. And also,your short term memory needs some work. Infinite pound works against virtually everyone. The infinites in Brawl (besides IC's, which have requirements) do not. The IC's infinites are not banned because they have requirements. This makes it possible to actually win against them even if you got 0-death infinited 1 second into the match. The ICs are very vulnerable to a lot of things.

Separating Nana, killing Nana, gimping Popo's recovery without Nana... etc. All these vulnerabilities make it easy to gimp them.

You've lost this argument, feel free to backtrack, because I know you're going to.

Or you could, you know, not forget very important things I've already said... or come into possession of some logic... or debating skills.

Alright, can you stop making this point? I understand already that it's not easy for the IC infinite to happen. I made that concession pages ago, you're right. But you still haven't shown me exactly what it takes for something to be banned (as evidenced by your lack of a real response to the JP rising pound stall), and once you actually come up with a good definition that actually encompasses all the things we ban today, I will show you why infinites belong in that list.

Yes I did. The fact that you claim I'm wrong about it does not make it so. Your (quite possibly intentional) misinterpretation of my posts do not disqualify my arguments.

So: you've won the point that IC infinites will probably not be banned because they don't affect the game enough. I have tried to show that we don't need things to ruin tournaments to ban them with stalling, which I don't think you've fully refuted yet.

Infinite stalls ruin the game. If at any time someone with an infinite stall is ahead, they have just won the match. And they work against everyone (except for maybe the character itself)... and have no requirements. See the connections here?

It's like "DeDeDe just grabbed DK" or "ICs just grabbed X-character"... only the arguments "It only works on 5 characters" and "It has requirements" do not apply to infinite stalls.

You said yourself you have absolutely no idea why or how stalling affected the tournament scene because you weren't around, so you don't actually know how badly it affected the scene.

And neither do you. I've made suggestions as to what probably happened, nothing more.

And: what you're saying can and should apply directly to infinites. Given the right conditions (just like stalling, as I said above), infinites could be unstoppable. We can still ban them.

Yes. Only they don't apply to IC's and DDD's infinites.

What matters is: is it possible to beat Fox on Hyrule without stalling banned? Yes, it is. If the other player somehow manages to stay above him in percentage. Remember, that's not impossible, it's just highly unlikely that one of the lasers won't hit you. All that matters, according to your argument, is that it has to be strictly impossible (not just very unlikely) to be banned. Winning against a staller is unlikely but possible. Winning against an infinite user (say DDD when you're Mario) is unlikely but possible, which is exactly why you said it shouldn't be banned.

You just argued against yourself. Is it possible to win against DeDeDe as Donkey Kong? It is! All you need to do is to win! Just kill him before he kills you!

It's impossible to never ever fall behind by even 1%, at which point you just lost the game. And matches ending the second one side is ahead by even 1% are broken enough for us to ban.

Maybe you should read why I said. JP, Peach, and Sonic all need to meet a certain condition to get to that level: they need to have a higher % than you. That means it's not an automatic win, it's just a probable win. Just like infinites.

It's an automatic win the second you get ahead by even 1%.

Even with infinites it's not an auto-win once they grab you. It's only an auto-stock if they do it perfectly. You'll be able to come back and try to... come back. You'll still have the chance to fight against them to win. With an infinite stall, you won't even be allowed to touch them.

The second they got ahead, they lost. It's not the same.

Get grabbed against DDD as one of the 5 characters and it's an auto stock-loss. It's not as bad, but it's bad for the same reasons.

Auto-loss of one stock =/= Auto-loss of the entire match

I'm not upset. You just made a claim that was wrong, and for the first time in this thread, you've admitted that you were wrong. I appreciate it.

Then why the CAPS and the heated words and, you know, claiming it was bashing and...

Look, this point doesn't really matter, I was just getting you to admit that you can be wrong at some level (albiet you do whine a lot when you have to admit you're wrong). What I said was confusing. I understood what Sirlin said, and when I said that both people could choose DDD, I meant that everyone technically has access to infinites because everyone can pick a character that can infinite.

Only, I was not wrong on this point, yet you claimed I was... and that I was going to "post some silly response devoid of reasoning as a smokescreen to attempt to prove that you're right" and that "that's another reason why no one likes arguing against [me]".

Only I don't, I was right and you were wrong. Since you were wrong, apparently, it doesn't matter anymore.

We're at the point where you're still trying to determine how we ban things.

No I'm not. I did not write the rules. I'm merely retelling them.

You've said that a) it doesn't depend on tournament performance.
b) The only thing it depends on is where it is strictly impossible to win when entering a match against someone who has a stall. You MUST pick one character if you wish to win.

a) I said it doesn't necessarily have to happen enough to win entire tournaments as long as it's proven to be able to do just that.
b) It becomes impossible to win from the second someone with a good infinite stall gets ahead by even 1%. Against an infinite, you just lose a stock. Against an infinite stall, you lose the entire match (I'm repeating this to make sure you see this).

I have said that we limit JP's rising pound even though it is possible to win by just staying ahead in percents. That directly refutes what you have to say, and now you have to come up with a justification that doesn't involve AUTOMATICALLY winning when you enter the stage. Because, as I've explained, we banned stalling tactics like Wall-Bombs, Rising Pounds, etc, and there is a possibility you can win against those tactics.

But then we're back to "How do we police it?", "How many Rising pounds is enough?", "What if he's recovering and Rising Pounding for supposed recovery?" and "What's stopping him from Rising Pounding for the limited amount of allowed Rising Pounds, land and then repeating the process"? It's not like Jiggz is very vulnerable after Rising Pound.

Checkmate, come up with a new reason for why we ban things that encompasses these banned tactics or you've lost the argument.

More like self-atari (Go).

 

[Matador]

You can use them. You just won't be able to win tournaments as them (if they have DeDeDes who are any good). No one's preventing you from using them. They're just preventing you from winning as them. Not the same thing.


Read above. We do not ban anything that's even remotely "unfair". We do not even ban everything that's "very unfair". We ban things that break the game and severely limit Competitive viability. DeDeDe's infinite on 4 characters does not qualify for these two prerequisites.

Okay Yuna, you win. This is all I wanted to hear. Mind if I sig?

 

[Yuna]

Did I miss anything? If not, please discuss with all of these in mind. : P

Every single chaingrab in the game on a walk-off edged stage.

 

[Tien2500]

Hmmmmm... I have to draw your attention to one statement for its level of blatant wrongness.

They could win... if the opponent was either worse than them or just plays reaaaaally badly. It doesn't require perfect play to not get grabbed. Heck, spotdodges and rolls have so many invincibility frames now, it's pretty hard to get grabbed. And you can sacrifice yourself. If you think he's gonna grab you, spotdodge it. If he instead went for a Smash for mixupping, yes, you'll eat the smash. But at least you won't get grabbed.

It's pretty hard to get grabbed? Are you serious? Most grabs (aside from Zelda's ) are really quite quick. In the case of the infinites the characters that have infinites, Dedede, Charizard, Squirtle, and Marth, 3 out of the 4 have impressive grabs in terms of speed and range (and squirtle can sort of do some tricky things with shellshifting but if you're prepared it shouldn't be a problem). So I think saying its hard to get grabbed is a really stupid statement. Surely there are measures you can take to avoid it but its not hard to grab someone in this game at all. One powershield or spot dodge and they're pretty much grabbed.

 

[St. Viers]

Tien, the point of that statement was that compared to melee, grabs are much harder to pull off if you have a short grab range, due to predictablility (and the abilty to dodge, even if it leads to a smash), and lack of WDing....

 

[Yuna]

Okay Yuna, you win. This is all I wanted to hear. Mind if I sig?

Whatever. It's not like it's some kind of shocking discovery. This has been true to Competitive fighting games ever since the very 1st one (um... Street Figher II?).

You thorougly misunderstood my point. Congratulatons.

what I said was, it is hypocritical to allow infinites but then ban walkoff stages. The reason is because once someone counterpicks a stage, you have the ability to choose your character. At that point, you know exactly what you are getting into when you stick to your main and they pick dedede or falco. From there you just have to live by your rules. Dont get Grabbed or you will die. You will have to live by the same constraints infinites leave those 7 characters. Reread what I originally posted Yuna instead of posting 1000 words a minute of complete useless garbage.

It's not my fault if you cannot express yourself properly utilizing the English language. It's not my fault if understand your posts requires an interpreter who speaks NGZese. Your post made it sound like you thought you could ban stages whenever... and in an unlimited quantity.

And what part of "It's not broken enough if it's only 7 out of 703 matchups, but it is broken if it's, like, 670 out of 703 matchup" (not in those words) was too hard for you to understand? I've had to say that one jillion times now. Walk-offs allows one-grab (to chains)/lock KOs on everyone and not just a select few. You'll be forced to play as one of 4 characters instead of just not playing one of 7 characters.

Seriously, don't jump into the middle of a debate and thinks everything you bring to the table is new and fresh and that it hasn't already been discussed to death.

I just want to make a point.

STOP SAYING ITS ONLY 7 MATCHUPS. Stop labeling matchups at all! It isn't about "Oh this only occurs when A fights C, and thats improbably since A could fight A-Z".

Brawl rules state that when you lose, your opponent has the ability to counterpick the character. That means in every set, there will be at least 1 match, and at most, all 3 matches where you can never be your character. It isn't because it is a disadvantaged matchup, it is because it is a broken matchup. With the general use of marth players, I as a Ness player would never feel comfortable using Ness. Thats pretty rediculous.

What does counterpicking have to do with anything? Also, with Advanced Slob Picks, the most prevalent system, the winner can also switch characters. If you know or think the opponent can infinite you, switch. That's the risk you run by maining one one of the Cursed 7.

 

[Mr. Escalator]

Mario's fireball lock? I'm pretty sure it knocks them back to their feet, whereas Luigi's pseudo-locks.
Wow, I'm nitpicking.
Yoshi has an "infinite" grab release on Wario, I THINK, as long as you input the grab at the precise time. You should be able to get the wario to near 100% before he's able to escape. I'm not sure.

 

[Yuna]

It's pretty hard to get grabbed? Are you serious? Most grabs (aside from Zelda's ) are really quite quick. In the case of the infinites the characters that have infinites, Dedede, Charizard, Squirtle, and Marth, 3 out of the 4 have impressive grabs in terms of speed and range (and squirtle can sort of do some tricky things with shellshifting but if you're prepared it shouldn't be a problem). So I think saying its hard to get grabbed is a really stupid statement. Surely there are measures you can take to avoid it but its not hard to grab someone in this game at all. One powershield or spot dodge and they're pretty much grabbed.

It's hard to get grabbed if you play campily and safely. Also, you can leave yourself open on purposes. The frame window for a grab vs. a dodge is small. In order to properly punish a dodge or a roll, a smash that stays out for a long time is much more suitable.

This is what I meant by sacrificing yourself, to spotdodge and roll more than usual, leaving yourself open for getting hit by moves but at the same time reducing the chances of getting grabbed. Also, you must not be playing Brawl, where Marth's grab range is nowhere near as good as it was in Melee.

One powershield won't do jack if you're camping with projectiles or auto-canceling and/or spacing properly. Neither will one spot-dodge (if you're doing those things I just mentioned).