Dark Sonic
Smash Hero
Not to mention that hitting their shield typically pushes them to far back anyway, and that Nana lags behind Popo, so even if he perfect shields then Nana will just get hit and they still won't be able to do the infinite.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?
- Thread starter Patsie
- Start date
- Status
MookieRah
Kinda Sorta OK at Smash
This:
This:
win.
plus
This:
equals
win.
I think this threads been over for a while now. Where's Patsie anyway?
Patsie
Smash Journeyman
I'm currently trying to figure out, in my free time, how AlphaZealot can accuse me of flaming for calling someone an idiot while he calls us downright stupid in the same thread. I guess he really can warn people on a whim.
Other than that, I've got too much work for right now to respond, but I probably will later. This thread lost pretty much all value for me at this point, though.
Other than that, I've got too much work for right now to respond, but I probably will later. This thread lost pretty much all value for me at this point, though.
Patsie
Smash Journeyman
I'm also guessing that AlphaZealot decided not to warn people like this who've been flaming me the whole thread, and people wonder why I stop responding.He ran away like a little *****!.(Brawl Taunts reference for the win.
)
Why should someone lighten up? Patsie is 100% serious, 100% of the time.
I thought you stopped responding because there's nothing left to talk about. We've already shown you why the IC infinite is valid.
Let me ask you a question--have you ever actually attempted to pull one off yourself? It's incredibly hard; one of the hardest things to do in Brawl. It takes technical consistency and skill at desynching that I doubt you have.
If you're so worried about the effects of the infinite on the tournament scene, get good at doing it and go out and win tournaments with it. Then it'll get banned.
Oh right, I forgot that the internet is serious business. Serious business indeed. And that on this boards, join date and post counts somehow shows how much your opinion matters for alot of people.
AlphaZealot, for my joke, I deserve a flamewarning. Go ahead, give it to me so that Patsie won't feel cheated. Do it, I'm not kidding about that.
Also, to get back on topic:
Since you obviously have time to lurk in the thread, why can't you make small posts then about Yunas and all other peoples arguments against the ban? That shouldn't take too long if you start small, right?
Patsie
Smash Journeyman
Can you blame me?
I have been the only one consistently responding on the side of banning infinites in this thread, making responses (actual responses, not one-line blanket quips that supposedly answer everything) and keeping up for 50 something pages. I have to deal with 3 people legitimately arguing against me at one time plus a thousand more mod-leeches that either flame or make 3 word responses like "Infinitez shouldnt be band" in this thread alone.
Look at my response to OrlanduEX. He posed a thought-out argument against mine, and I responded civilly and courteously. That's how I respond to well-reasoned arguments. I've done it to anyone who's responded civilly in the thread.
When I spend a lot of time writing out an explained argument and someone with 8 billion posts barely reads it, quotes whole paragraphs giving one-line responses, and then calls me ignorant, misguided, and full of crappy arguments, you don't see why I'd get upset at that person?
Maybe you've never spent time on something only to have it be completely passed off by one of the biggest logical charlatans I've ever met, but it's not fun.
What's also not fun is having to continually change your argument because different people change what I actually have to debate against. People told me to prove something was impossible (impossible means "without any possibility," by the way), and when I showed a possibility, they add the qualifier 'virtually impossible' to just mean close to impossible. In the end, I'm pursuing something other posters will never allow me to catch.
Maybe I'm wrong about infinites not being banned, but it doesn't change the fact that I've had to wade through absolute crap that I still put up with throughout the thread.
Whatever, I'm done with this thread. People are absolutely right that it hasn't been going anywhere, and, were it not for my stubbornness of caring that people think I'm right, it would've ended. It's not even fun to debate here anymore. So go ahead and have the last word, I'm doneski.
I have been the only one consistently responding on the side of banning infinites in this thread, making responses (actual responses, not one-line blanket quips that supposedly answer everything) and keeping up for 50 something pages. I have to deal with 3 people legitimately arguing against me at one time plus a thousand more mod-leeches that either flame or make 3 word responses like "Infinitez shouldnt be band" in this thread alone.
Look at my response to OrlanduEX. He posed a thought-out argument against mine, and I responded civilly and courteously. That's how I respond to well-reasoned arguments. I've done it to anyone who's responded civilly in the thread.
When I spend a lot of time writing out an explained argument and someone with 8 billion posts barely reads it, quotes whole paragraphs giving one-line responses, and then calls me ignorant, misguided, and full of crappy arguments, you don't see why I'd get upset at that person?
Maybe you've never spent time on something only to have it be completely passed off by one of the biggest logical charlatans I've ever met, but it's not fun.
What's also not fun is having to continually change your argument because different people change what I actually have to debate against. People told me to prove something was impossible (impossible means "without any possibility," by the way), and when I showed a possibility, they add the qualifier 'virtually impossible' to just mean close to impossible. In the end, I'm pursuing something other posters will never allow me to catch.
Maybe I'm wrong about infinites not being banned, but it doesn't change the fact that I've had to wade through absolute crap that I still put up with throughout the thread.
I couldn't agree more @ the flamers. The majority of posts I see on this forum are written by people who just lost to something and then say "INFINITEZ ARE UNFAIR." I approached the situation with an attempt at an actual argument that I spent time on, which is better than 90% of the posts you get here. Yet I was still bashed for it.
Whatever, I'm done with this thread. People are absolutely right that it hasn't been going anywhere, and, were it not for my stubbornness of caring that people think I'm right, it would've ended. It's not even fun to debate here anymore. So go ahead and have the last word, I'm doneski.
Ryazan
Smash Ace
I just don't get it. The developers butchered Brawl for competitive player by adding infinites and making it unbalanced. All because Sakurai wanted to make a non-competitive fighting game, which, frankly, is one hell of an oxymoron.
Sakurai and his team of testers weren't particularly vigilant about catching broken stuff.
I must've missed AlphaZealot calling people idiots. Quote, please. I saw you flame people left and right, however, using expletives. Both flaming and the use of expletives (when addressing someone) is against the ToS.
You claim "we" do a lot of things that we actually don't but that you yourself do. Don't be a pot.
You've ignored one bazillion thought-out and civil arguments in this thread, sometimes even after it's been pointed out to you that you've ignored them. When I "ignore" your arguments, it's due to me missing them or msireading them.
You just blatantly ignore portions of people's posts.
That's because Michigan is composed of idiots, and Patsie doesn't respond to idiots.
You've been saying that approximately once every 20 posts.Patsie said:
After reading your post, not really. But you can't just blame others either.
But you can't ignore the fact that we other people have posted arguments too, like Grunt, but you never responded to his argument.
Oh, I have, just in a different situation.
Wait, so people aren't allowed to change their argument to support evidence shown by the opposing party? That's ridiculous!
Well, you're not the only one who have to suffer from the crap, we who oppose the ban also have to sigh at the stupidity and flaming.
There are lots of threads and posts where people complain about the new people, even though they might've posted a real argument, the elitists on this forum only cares if you joined after Brawls release. This can be semi-related to your situation, because you have the desire to make people not make fun of you etc. but some people just don't care about the person in question (I am not pointing fingers at anyone specific right now, by the way), all they care about is their victory with their argument. Don't let it get to you. If you truly believe in something, then you should defend it to the end, hopefully through evidence.
That's your own choice.
Sorry if the post makes no sense, I just kinda rushed it out.
For the record, all Smash games so far have been sorely unbalanced.
Smash 64 was f***ing ridiculous. Death combos from 0% left and f***ing right. I s*** you not. Go watch some of Isai's Smash 64 videos.
Melee was also very unbalanced as we all know. There were infinites and death combos in that one too. We are all familiar with the dreaded Wobble. There is also the renowned Ken combo (a bunch of Marth fairs into dair) as well as Jiggly's Space Animal Slayer, (up throw + Rest which was a guaranteed kill against the Space Animals, Fox and Falco.)
Brawl simply carries on the tradition of being unbalanced and laced with broken s***, though Brawl in particular is surprising with all the glitches there are. You'd think with like 700 people working on the d*** game, there'd be at least a few capable bug testers.
They've never been, though they certainly dropped the ball in the worst way in Brawl.
What's so pathetic about Brawl is that they saw what we were able to do in Melee. They saw what set knockback and almost-set knockback throws were capable of (broken chaingrabs). They even changed Sheik's downthrow in PAL.
And what did they do in Brawl? They gave us a bunch of new set knockback throws. And surprise, surprise, almost every single one of them can be used to chaingrab people!
They saw what people could do with a character with good priority, fast moves, pretty good knockback, combos, pressure, a reflector and a godawfully good projectile. What did they do? They gave us Pit.
They saw that Yoshi sucked. What did they do? They made him worse.
And what did they do in Brawl? They gave us a bunch of new set knockback throws. And surprise, surprise, almost every single one of them can be used to chaingrab people!
They saw what people could do with a character with good priority, fast moves, pretty good knockback, combos, pressure, a reflector and a godawfully good projectile. What did they do? They gave us Pit.
They saw that Yoshi sucked. What did they do? They made him worse.
playing the care card, i see.
Aziel
Smash Cadet
I agree completely with you. People seem to like accusing people of slapping a band-aid on things that are unfair within the game, meanwhile it's the developers on their own that have brought the game to this state.
Ripple
ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,632
one last thing, I'm going to a tourney and the host has asked if we could come up with ways to minimize the use of infinites since he disliked them. the thing I came up with for DDD and ICs was that you must hit them at least once with a grab punch before you throw them. another one I came up with was that after 8 throws they must be thrown up.(as fas as I know no chain grab is usable with up throw) for marth vs. ness/lucas I just said that past 100% you may not re-grab the opponent. does this sound "fair" to everyone?
bigafromusclekid
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 53
Patsie, I'm sorry dude, but you're ridiculous. I mained Link in melee, and if I were to every ***** about being waveshined, I would've just gotten laughed at. Waveshining is an infinite against Link, but I chose to play Link. You need to learn every aspect of the game before trying to change the whole bros community.
after 8 throws with the icys you're getting faired into oblivion rofl
Meat Truck
Smash Cadet
8 throws is actually the perfect number to regulate chain grabs, and i've come up with a mathimatical way to prove it.
Firstly, let's let us define the terms. I'm going to use C for the amount of chain grabs done in a set, D for damage, representing the %damage done (on average) to the character being chain grabbed, and I will use ~ to define the varying average reaction to a chain grab situation (this is not added into calculation, but is simply there to state that the skill of both players is a variant, and must be taken into consideration.)
My object was to find the number of throws that would acrue such an amount of damage as to be worthy of use in tournament play, while still maintaining the other player's ability to defend themselves after said chaingrabs, without being instantly ko'd by any successful attack. For theoretical purposes, I'm going to base these calculations on the assumption that 3 sets of chaingrabs on one stock = you suck and should probably lose anyway. Furthermore, I will also place under presupposition that128% is an amount of damage that is high enough after 2 sets of grabs to make the useful, while still not making the character who was thrown completely unable to fight, and 192% is when just about every character will die from the upthrow that would end the chaingrab. That being said, the math is as follows.
3c = 198% divide each side by 3, and the result is
C = 64 which = the amount of damage, on average that should be done on a character in any given set of chain grabs. (side note, i bet the japanese knew this when they made smash64. their mindpowers know no bounds!)
now, we find out how many throws done by ic's or dedede surmount to as close to 64% as possibe without any outside variables, such as grab jabs or item damage, etc.
to save everyone a lot of time and testing, the result I found to be (with the average of d3 and ic's combined), 8 grabs. we then take this, and plug it into our original definition of appropriate damage and variable skill level to find conclusively the result
8=D~
now, i'm sure you can all agree, that this SHOULD put an end to the squabble over infinite chain grab limiting. after all, who can argue with solid math?
My hat goes off to you Patsie. You, in my opinion, are the greatest debater on SWF. This thread educated many, including myself, on how competitive fighting games work.
No one (besides Yuna) has any reason to flame Patsie. He's presented intelligent and researched arguements that always brought a new side to the issue. I believe this thread should remain open and possibly stickied to prevent being reproduced and a premise for closing threads of the same topic.
No one (besides Yuna) has any reason to flame Patsie. He's presented intelligent and researched arguements that always brought a new side to the issue. I believe this thread should remain open and possibly stickied to prevent being reproduced and a premise for closing threads of the same topic.
But he didn't address some points that people presented, while most others tried to counter his and the other pro-ban infinite peoples argument. I don't see why it should be stickied, how often does stickying something help anything?
Besides, almost nothing is being added further to the debate, the things Meat Truck presented seem viable for debate, but no-one is actually debating.
Meat Truck: Explain what you mean with only 8 grabs please. Do you mean 8 chain-degree grabs per match or what? And also, Science only works when a theory have been tested more than once. If the outcome is the same for all the tests, then sure.
But the conclusion point, more or less, is that if you are hosting a tournament, then your rules apply: If you want a limit on infinites, then go ahead. If you don't want limits, then fine.
Besides, almost nothing is being added further to the debate, the things Meat Truck presented seem viable for debate, but no-one is actually debating.
Meat Truck: Explain what you mean with only 8 grabs please. Do you mean 8 chain-degree grabs per match or what? And also, Science only works when a theory have been tested more than once. If the outcome is the same for all the tests, then sure.
But the conclusion point, more or less, is that if you are hosting a tournament, then your rules apply: If you want a limit on infinites, then go ahead. If you don't want limits, then fine.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
You make me want to beak things.
waveshine was banned in several tournaments.
Waveshine was an infinite on EVERYONE.
Surri-Sama
Smash Hero
I only have one question about all this and it goes to Yuna, RDK and Ankoku
Why do you keep arguing Patsie about this?
You HAVE made valid points, and he ignored them.... debate ends here
You pointed out you HAD made valid points and that he did IGNORE them.... a second coming of the end?
You must by know realize most of the Brawl community (not the real competitive bunch but the SWF bunch) don’t really listen...to anything...go see my posts on the Jiggly = worst char in game debate...i was completely ignored for bringing up things they couldn’t counter....
So what do I think we should do...let them fight...they don’t win tourneys anyways
Why do you keep arguing Patsie about this?
You HAVE made valid points, and he ignored them.... debate ends here
You pointed out you HAD made valid points and that he did IGNORE them.... a second coming of the end?
You must by know realize most of the Brawl community (not the real competitive bunch but the SWF bunch) don’t really listen...to anything...go see my posts on the Jiggly = worst char in game debate...i was completely ignored for bringing up things they couldn’t counter....
So what do I think we should do...let them fight...they don’t win tourneys anyways
CStrife187
Smash Journeyman
Waveshine was never banned... ever. it also wasn't infinite on everyone. Waveshining alone was only an infinite on characters with really high traction like link, peach, and zelda. Those actually may have been the only three that had high enough traction for fox to get to the other side of them with one perfect wavedash after a shine. Other than that waveshining wasn't infinite on anybody. there were several characters who fell and could tech after being shined, and there were several others who slid too far for even mofo's drillshine infinite to work on them.
Please know what you're talking about before you post stuff like this.
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
It was banned in several tournaments just like wobbling has been banned.
The ban was never universal. ask Ankoku or any other person with great melee knowledge.
Waveshining has been banned, it just isn't a universal ban like the stage bans.
Bowser, Captain Falcon, Donkey Kong, Dr. Mario, Ganondorf, Ice Climbers, Link, Luigi,, Mario, Marth, Ness, Peach, Samus, Sheik, Yoshi, Zelda.
Taken from smashwiki so I am not entirely sure about its accuracy.
however I am quite sure the IC's could be waveshined, traction was not the only factor.
Also my mistake on it being an infinite on everyone.
I believe the falling occurred in the PAL version (at least it did for Marth).
Speak for yourself.
I was indeed wrong about it being an infinite on everyone but I am not wrong about it being banned in several tournaments.
It was pretty much him against 10 other people for most of the thread. It's hard to address everyone, especially when some bring up issues that were refuted at the beginning of the thread. Then others, like Ills, post because they're uninformed (you can't DI wall infinites. That's why they're banned). And there wasn't really even a real clear-cut standard that anti-infinite debaters could go off of.
Some said they don't affect tourney results enough to be banned.
Yuna said tourney results are not why we ban things.
Yuna then posted a more stable criterion; 4 points where everything they ban must fall under.
But this doesn't apply to stages or items.
And Stickies help...look at the character specifics. Matchup charts, vid threads, and instructional threads are all stickied for easy access and a premise for closing threads that try to start new ones. This is (or was) apparently a very controversial subject since there are serveral threads opening with the same topic. If someone were to sticky this, that person could bring their ideas here instead if the thread doesn't already address their points.
Most people had the same arguments, and most of Yunas points were ignored. Grunt helped with one, and I helped Grunt with that argument, in hope that Patsie would answer. He didn't answer it.
Items are banned from almost all tournaments, with the exclusion of the ISP tournaments, when/if they every pop up.
Stages aren't playable in the sense of controllability. It's not like you can play AS a stage. Thus, stages have a different way of banning.
Characters and techniques are all under the same rules of banning. Banning is a last resort, and it's applied with certain rules, like the case of Akuma in Super Street Fighter II Turbo. One rule, which was the case with Akuma, is that if it's too good, then it most likely need a ban. Why did Akuma need a ban? Because he was virtually impossible to beat (virtually in the sense of a players skill), and was about 10 times better than EVERY CHARACTER in the game, according to Sirlins estimations. This case isn't like that, because it isn't (this is Grunts argument by the way) "Play character X or lose". If it were, it would be banned, which was the case of Akuma. Akuma was banned because it would eventually degenerate into Akuma vs. Akuma in every tournament. These infinites will hardly do that much damage to the competitive Smash scene, because you can avoid it, unlike losing against a good Akuma.
You totally missed my point about what I meant with not helping, by the way. I meant stuff like: Don't post like this etc. Those help sometimes, but not always.
Again, this was written in a haste, please ask me to clarify anything I wrote in this post.
Roller
Smash Legend
This man speaks so much truth.
there are only like... not that many infinites if you don't include walls... and with D3 he can only infinite like 3 people without walls. I know this is very controversial but... what if either IC were banned... or their chaingrab? Or maybe just the zero death CG. Or a limit on how much damage they can do with it? I don't know... just a couple suggestions. This thread has been very controversial and full. That is... fully discussed. Thoroughly.
Limits are entirely up to the tournament hosters decision. As it stands, the community won't ban infinites because not nearly enough evidence states that it should.
If one would want to limit CGs, then one could try Meat Trucks theory on a 8-grab-limit.
Who knows, maybe Brawls metagame will evolve into something that needs limitation on somethings. I for one hope that it evolves into something that's deep (Not Melee deep, because that is impossible, sadly enough) and that doesn't need limitations.
- Status