Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[Wölf]

listen to patsie with less then 200 or so posts who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about... or listen to Yuna who's been here forever with more than 6000 posts, with lots of tourney experience, smash moderator, and over all cool guy? Hrm...

The above is a loaded post, tbh.

I think this thread just needs to end. Patsie isn't even here anymore and all of the old arguments and strats are being revived (Camp IC, don't get grabbed, etc.) It's all getting very redundant because it's all been stated, restated, and restated again.

 

[Yuna]

Beautiful Takun way to address the guy's argument.

"Tough **** you know nothing you stupid baby".

Do what yuna and AZ did, provide an actual argument rather than bash the hell out of him.

Actually, I do both at the same time. I'm just that awesome.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

A lot of you guys seem to forget that Brawl isn't the only game played competitively. There are lots of fighters in which certain charcters are completely banned because of broken tactics.

Be glad that in brawl the main idea is to ban the tactic, not the character.

Character matchups are one thing, but when a tactic, such as an infinite, completely elimiantes the other character's ability to react, then it is broken and must be removed. That's the simple law of competitive gaming.

The best player should win. That simple. While its true that in any occasion, a lesser player can do the unnexpected and snag victory, thent hat means that, at that moment, he was the better player.

But if that victory is grabbed by using a broken tactic that removed the other player's ability to respond, then that tactic should be removed because it's essentially cheating.

The OP had it right. To win, you need to prove that you are capable of outplaying your oponent, not that you are capable of inputing a series of commands to the CPU that will always result in victory against any player regardless of skill.

 

[Patsie]

Alright, I've been a bit too harsh in explanations, but I'm not even going to engage Yuna anymore. I've thought she was an idiot from her previous posts, and, since she's just completely devoid of intelligence and justifications for her arguments (if you could call them arguments), I don't want to waste my time.

Yuna, if you post intending me to respond, don't bother. I won't even glance at your mindless drivel. And did you seriously say, "He started it?" How old are you again?

I've actually got work now, so I will have to limit myself and it will probably be the last time I can post today.

Patsie: I actually agree with a few of your points, but the fact of the matter is that this community (as ban-happy as the East Coast is sometimes) will not outright ban a strategy. If there is an enabler, they will ban that instead (such as the walls for wall infinites). It's tradition. They never did it in the past (they never even banned Wobbling outright), and they won't do it now. Yeah, from a logical standpoint it is kind of dumb, but that's how this community operates. If you want to change it, 'Theory Fighter' is not the way to go. Host some tournaments, make and successfully enforce limits on infinites, videotape the whole thing, then present your irrefutable evidence then.

Point taken. I understand I'm not going to change things with a post, but I wanted to know why people stand by infinites when I don't see anything behind them. I haven't even been affected by them, so I probably won't take the initiative to try and change them on my own. I will say, though, that I think it's hard to show results from banning infinites. The problem isn't really that huge, and most times people limit how many infinites they do, so my tourney videos wouldn't really prove anything. I'm just trying to attack the underlying logic.

Story about Bum v DDD

I realize it's easy to avoid the grab, and I've said before that it helps in avoiding the infinite. I'm not trying to fight that, as it stands now, "Don't get grabbed" is the only practical advice someone can get.

I'm just trying to attack the underlying theory of infinites in general. I understand that they can be avoided, but I think people need to understand how completely changing a playstyle to avoid something as basic as a grab is detrimental. It seems like people understand that infinites are easy as hell to pull off, and they detest people who win through those means. I just don't get why they are tolerated.

Basically, people are attacking me for saying "Don't get grabbed." isn't a viable strategy. It might work for some people. But it honestly seems like everyone who says it avoids the big pink elephant in the room: infinites still exist.

That's why I got pissed at people simply saying don't get grabbed, because they seem to just ignore the fact that it's a band-aid fix on a gaping wound for infinites. I'm not saying people should complain about it during the match. I'm only trying to criticize why people perform or allow infinites in the first place.

Combos are not the standard by which to measure things. Just because something is more powerful than combos doesn't mean it's broken. So DDD can CG Mario to death. Tough luck Mario, you have a bad matchup. One bad matchup. That's it.

I'm waiting for your response to my ICG post.

Wait, so what do you define broken as? What's more powerful than 0 to death?

Personally, broken for me is something that can kill you without you being able to react. That's broken, because I don't have any say in how I actually influence the game EXCEPT the period before I'm grabbed.

I understand that I influence the game before the infinite occurs. That's a good argument. The only problem is, it's ridiculously easy for me to lose influence over the game, because grabs are easy to pull off. If you play so that grabs aren't easy to pull off, you'll probably gimp yourself. But that doesn't even matter, really. What matters is the main concept behind infinites. That's all I'm trying to debate, whether they are any good for the game and their allowance in tournaments.

So, true. You're right that I can influence the game in trying not to get grabbed. But I still don't think that solves the problem of infinites, because the fact is, they still occur once you are grabbed. And I'm just trying to say, they shouldn't be allowed to occur.

As to your IC post:
Fair enough, you've established that the ICG isn't easy to pull off. It requires certain conditions.

There are still other concerns though, and I guess this applies to what I just said before. You can avoid getting grabbed (just as you can kill Nana or disrupt stop ICGs from happening), but it still doesn't answer whether it should be ok to infinite people once the grab actually happens.

Ya Patsie, when do we end up distinguishing an infinite (which traditionally is an inescapable set of maneuvers strung together) with a combo (which traditionally is an inescapable set of maneuvers strung together)?

It seems to me that Brawl "infinites" are just like traditional combos. Are you trying to say we should ban combos? I don't see any other way to allow a "ban on infinites".

Good point, they are similar in that respect.

The difference comes from the infinite's name: you can repeat an infinite, well, infinitely. A combo is inescapable, true, but you are given time to react eventually. With an infinite, you're not. You just die, which is what the main problem is.

Also, I guess there probably aren't many real combos in Brawl, though I guess you could argue CGs are combos. Doesn't matter much though, there's definitely a difference which I've highlighted a few times already.

do you guys really have time to argue about this with MANY PARAGRAPHS of dialog?


I'm just sayin', don't you have something more productive to do with your time?

Haha, I'm getting $15/hr to intern, but my boss hasn't brought me any work yet until today, so basically the past week I've been getting paid to surf the net.

 

[Wölf]

A lot of you guys seem to forget that Brawl isn't the only game played competitively. There are lots of figheters in which certain charcters are completely banned because of broken tactics.

Be glad that in brawl the main idea is to ban the tactic, not the character.

This brings back the question as to "How much is considered bannable?" Is it 4 consecutive CGs? Infiniting on a wall for more than 3 seconds? It all seems very abstract, "You're banned because you CG'ed with DDD until his stale moves took over! Baah!"

 

[Foxy]

Alright, I've been a bit too harsh in explanations, but I'm not even going to engage Yuna anymore. I've thought she was an idiot from her previous posts, and, since she's just completely devoid of intelligence and justifications for her arguments (if you could call them arguments), I don't want to waste my time.

"Those who know what they're talking about and can have intelligent discussions talk,
Those who don't should just shut up and leave Smashboards." - Yuna (who is still a man), 2008

I C WAT U DID THAR

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

This brings back the question as to "How much is considered bannable?" Is it 4 consecutive CGs? Infiniting on a wall for more than 3 seconds? It all seems very abstract, "You're banned because you CG'ed with DDD until his stale moves took over! Baah!"

That doesn't mean that we should abandon the attempt to mitigate it. Many other games would take the simple way out
-Ban the iceclimbers because they CAN chaingrab and it IS broken.

other games might say:
-Ban iceclimbers from using grabs

still others might say
-Ban ice climers from even using one chaingrab


they all solve the problem and, while they may be a bit harsh, normally the rules favor being overy harsh to being overly lenient, it's the only way you can assure that the broken tactic won't interfere with your game


oh and I edited that post some BTW

A lot of you guys seem to forget that Brawl isn't the only game played competitively. There are lots of fighters in which certain charcters are completely banned because of broken tactics.

Be glad that in brawl the main idea is to ban the tactic, not the character.

Character matchups are one thing, but when a tactic, such as an infinite, completely elimiantes the other character's ability to react, then it is broken and must be removed. That's the simple law of competitive gaming.

The best player should win. That simple. While its true that in any occasion, a lesser player can do the unnexpected and snag victory, thent hat means that, at that moment, he was the better player.

But if that victory is grabbed by using a broken tactic that removed the other player's ability to respond, then that tactic should be removed because it's essentially cheating.

The OP had it right. To win, you need to prove that you are capable of outplaying your oponent, not that you are capable of inputing a series of commands to the CPU that will always result in victory against any player regardless of skill.

 

[Sliq]

If someone infinites me, I just punch them in the nuts, hey, play to win right?

I have this to say to anyone who disagrees with my strategy: "Don't get punched in the nuts."

The thread should've ended after this glorious post.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Actually, I do both at the same time. I'm just that awesome.

Intellectual flames>stupid flames.


You're not awesome BTW.
Why?

You gave me soggy cookies. >=(

 

[Foxy]

I think someone needs to reiterate this until it gets through the skulls of anti-infinite and anti-chain grab people.

IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT WON'T BE BANNED UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS


Doesn't matter how broken you think it is, because:

IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS
IT ISN'T BROKEN UNTIL IT AFFECTS TOURNEY RESULTS

 

[MzNetta]

Beautiful Takun way to address the guy's argument.

"Tough **** you know nothing you stupid baby".

Do what yuna and AZ did, provide an actual argument rather than bash the hell out of him.

Allow me to elaborate.
This entire topic consists of various intelligent and respectful users trying to explain to one upset, confused, or angry user why things are the way they are.
It will inevitably end in OP either accepting things as they are, or going elsewhere to complain.
He genuinely believes that some sort of change in rulings may come from this, when in reality, its just a waste of time and effort.

 

[Sliq]

Swing the bat Takun.

 

[PK Hexagon]

I understand what Patsie is saying and the reasoning behind it, but let's face it: No rule is going to be imposed over the well being of the 7 unlucky characters who can reliably be infinite chain grabbed. Bad match ups exist in fighting games? How new and exciting! No one is forcing anyone to main those 7 characters, especially out of a cast as large as Brawl's.

"But the IC can infinite everyone!"

See: Every post in this thread explaining how to ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

I understand what Patsie is saying and the reasoning behind it, but let's face it: No rule is going to be imposed over the well being of the 7 unlucky characters who can reliably be infinite chain grabbed. Bad match ups exist in fighting games? How new and exciting! No one is forcing anyone to main those 7 characters, especially out of a cast as large as Brawl's.

"But the IC can infinite everyone!"

See: Every post in this thread explaining how to ensure that doesn't happen.

and the easiest way: banning it.

 

[Crizthakidd]

T_T on the first page yuna said we're not here to have fun, we are here to WIN


lol winning = fun and i have fun winning. loosing just makes me learn and motovates me to get better. if sakurai had this mindset online would be awsome and the game woulndt take an hour to fall from ur short hops.


anyway in many many fighters there are infinites. the ones that are too easy to do that are truely broken and seen like this by the top players and smartest ones, are banned. how often do u see an IC win purely on grabs? because good players make nana gtfo.


ddds infinites on only 5 chars is hard to do and once u master it (doest take long) how many pple can actually do it in a match. who uses bowser or mario vs ddd anyway.

falco ahs an awsome changrab. but hes also got many other weaknesses to exploit. only truely broken things will be banned kk? no walls no problem.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm sorry, what? We've been spending 3 months saying "The defensive game is way too good!"? We've just been complaining about how interminably boring it is.

Also, defensive game =/= grabbing. What are you gonna do in order to not get grabbed? Play friggin' defensively! Yes, you camp the ICs! Surprise!

Dude, come on. That was your first argument against Brawl: the defensive game is too powerful due to a lack of viable approach options. You've said it over and over again in multiple threads. If I was a search *****, I'd pull up posts... but I'm actually supposed to be doing work right now. ^_^; Either way, you've been arguing both that camping is too powerful and that this overpowered shield-grab camp approach is boring as hell, which is why you prefer Melee. MANY other people echo your sentiment. Hell, I agree with you, which was one of the reasons I looked into items. It's also the reason I don't go around posting 'don't get grabbed' all the time.

Either shield-grabs and camping are vastly overpowered in Brawl, or they are very beatable. One or the other; arguing both is hypocrisy.

EDIT: I never said you couldn't camp the IC's.

 

[Ulevo]

Alright. It's threads like these that give me reason to stay out of the General Brawl Discussion Forums, but I might as well put in my two cents.

First off, what are the supposed infinites at hand?

1) Chain Grab w/ Walls

2) Release Grabs

3) Wall Infinite via Attacks

4) Ice Climbers

5) Dedede vs 5 characters

Now to address each problem.

1) This example pertains to characters that can infinite on walls with a normal Grab or Chain Grab. Some obvious examples would be Dedede, or Ikes Forward Throw (basing the argument that the so called "infinite" is enough to bring a player into KO range with no risk to the user, and not an actual infinite indefinitely).

This should not even be a topic of discussion to be honest. Walls (and walk offs) are banned for a multitude of reasons aside from infinites, but they are banned regardless. They promote camping and techfest where it gives characters abnormal advantages and allow for high % stocks.

2) The only infinite Release Grabs I am aware of are Marths on Ness (apparently Lucas can escape, but I am still skeptical on that), Yoshi on Wario, and Charizard on Ness (apparently Squirtle was debunked too, I have to confirm this). That is a total of three. Now while I agree it presents a very large disadvantage to these characters, and the consequence vs mistake is a little unreasonable to be allowed in tournament play, there are most certainly ways to deal with the issues at hand.

3) Again, like 1), something that shouldn't even be of topic. Walls are banned, and understandably so. It is worth mentioning that many so called "infinites" against walls can be escaped via Smash DI, but there are others I believe that cannot be escaped. Still rather irrelevant, as you will never play these levels in a reasonable tournament setting, and all walls present on tournament legal stages are temporary transitions that do not allow for infinites and can be avoided reasonably (i.e. wall on Frigate Orpheon).

4) First off, as Yuna has stated, ICs are not an instawin button. Conditions are to be required in order to pull off an infinite CG.

- Nana must be alive.
- Nana must be present with Popo once the grab starts

That being said, keeping Nana alive and present whilst being tossed around by your opponent can be rather tedious. With there Chain Grabs aside, these characters have a lot of cons, and are difficult to use for the average player. If they were so overpowered, they would be dominating tournaments everywhere. They're not; Snake and Meta Knight are.

5) First off, I'm going to present the point that Samus is technically at a HUGE advantage against Dedede if a player is ever stupid enough to use him as a counter pick. The reason? Zero Suit Samus ***** Dedede badly. If a match starts w/ Samus vs Dedede, a player can use the Taunt Transformation (which is actually easy if you have the proper method. I can do it instantaneous and on whim now, and my hands in a splint) and Samus is no longer in danger.

So now were down to Dedede vs 4 Characters. You want my opinion on this? See 2).


That's all there is too it.

 

[PK Hexagon]

and the easiest way: banning it.

Lmao. If you were a TO, how would you go about banning infinites?

 

[Yuna]

A lot of you guys seem to forget that Brawl isn't the only game played competitively. There are lots of fighters in which certain charcters are completely banned because of broken tactics.

No we're not. These are very few and far inbetween and they're only banned when you can only win as them.

Character matchups are one thing, but when a tactic, such as an infinite, completely elimiantes the other character's ability to react, then it is broken and must be removed. That's the simple law of competitive gaming.

Only the infinite requires a set-up. It cannot be done at will.

The best player should win. That simple. While its true that in any occasion, a lesser player can do the unnexpected and snag victory, thent hat means that, at that moment, he was the better player.

What constitutes the best player? The one who learns how to infinite perfectly? The one who outcamps every as Snake? The one who picks Yoshi and manages to win by working 10 times as hard as everyone else?

Really, at what point do we stop? Also, no, we never banned anything because it "requires little skill".

But if that victory is grabbed by using a broken tactic that removed the other player's ability to respond, then that tactic should be removed because it's essentially cheating.

Read what we've already said on this, please.

The OP had it right. To win, you need to prove that you are capable of outplaying your oponent, not that you are capable of inputing a series of commands to the CPU that will always result in victory against any player regardless of skill.

So we're capable of outplaying our opponent and we ban stuff because it's not about outplaying them. Then, what? Everyone except Yoshi is banned? Because then it's really about who's the best player since you only have one character to choose from.

No having to work harder because of a bad matchup!

 

[Patsie]

Well, this has been a fun waste of time, but I think I'm done for now. I've gotten my point out there for people to mull over, but I've got work, and I'm probably going to forget about this post in a few days.

I'm not sure why people can't structure argumentation more like AZ... I wrote this wanting people to argue intelligently with me, but it seems like the majority of the board doesn't really know how to argue.

So, whatever, chew me apart. I understand the practical reasons for why infinites are still around, but I fail to see why people tolerate them on a theoretical level.

Anyway, hope to see you in game, challenge me on GB, etc. Peace, here's my last post:

We can make this really simple: do infinites break the game?
No.
If you disagree, feel free to point to how Wobbles and ChuDat were sweeping the competition in Melee in tournaments where wobbling was allowed.
Oh, right, they didn't, because "don't get grabbed" was a viable argument and wobbling proved not to be as big a deal as some of the whiners and moaners claimed.
"Don't get grabbed" should not be taken literally, its the thought behind the argument, it means, basically, "try your ****ed hardest not to be grabbed". Its entirely possible to avoid being grabbed for much of your stock, a grab at 80% =/= being grabbed at 0%. To frequently those who are against infinites make the assumption that everything takes place at the beginning of the stock, when that simply isn't the case.

Why should we wait to see it break the game?

Because if it doesn't, we are arbitrarily limiting certain aspects of certain characters just because some people think something is to difficult to deal with. All the DDD CG arguments on walk off stages are void if you, for example, play a character who can't be CG'd, and some characters that can be CG'd (Snake and Diddy Kong) have easy strategies to prevent being killed from the walk off edges (keep mines or bananas behind them). If no one is winning tournaments with these techniques then we know some people posess the ability to get around it. That there are work around, even if they are really hard, then infinites should not be banned.

From reading your first post, it seems like your entire argument boils down to: infinites are to easy to perform and are to hard to get by, the lopsided risk/reward situation means we should ban it.

People use to have gripes about Peach's D-Smash in Melee because everyone learned to L-cancel. Same thing with Link's Up-B out of shield before L-Canceling. They argued that it was to easy to do and the reward for doing it was to high. Take another example from another game, the zerg rush in Starcraft is tremendously easier to pull off than it is to counter. Under much of the logic in your first post, it should have been banned. Yet, it wasn't, and all the people who are actually good at the game can get around it.

Difficulty in performing something does not have to equal high reward.
Ease of performing something does not have to equal low reward.

This is, I think, where you are tripping up.

Alright, let me preface my response.

I did not intend to completely reverse the way tournaments are run now. I know a post by a guy on the forums, especially with little tourney experience, isn't going to change much.

What I intended to do was have people think about why infinites are allowed at tournaments. I know infinites on their own haven't won people tournaments, and I don't have a case if we're going purely off empirical evidence. I'm just attacking the theory behind it, and I don't think it's been adequately responded to.

Ok, now to your post.

I've seen some videos of ChuDat and Wobbles. I've seen them grab people and intentionally not wobble them the whole match. They don't really rely on infinites completely. I don't know what the reason for it is (my guess would be that people aren't really fans of seeing a player win using purely infinites, and that they wouldn't enjoy the game if all they did was infinites), but, they have gotten grabs off PLENTY of times, especially early in a stock, and decided not to infinite. It's not because the other people avoided the grab, it looks like; they've gotten it off before their opponent really did any damage.

But I can see the point of your example. Infinites aren't that big of a deal, people avoided them. But you have to realize that not everyone who had the capability to infinite utilized that ability whenever they grabbed.

I have consistently said, though, that I'm attacking the theory behind the infinite. I don't care if it can be avoided early on. My question has always been 'Why is the concept of an inescapable death move allowed?' I can understand that you're saying there's no empirics to actually deal with it as of yet. And, to be honest, there probably won't be, because people seem to not try to get all their kills from infinites. I was discussing the theory behind the move, and, now, I understand that it's not appreciated as much. But, still, I don't think its been answered fully yet.

That's fine if people base infinites off of whether they affect tournaments. I'll go to tournaments even if they allow it. What I am saying, though, is that I think I gave a lot of theory behind why the concept behind it is negative. And I don't think people have decided to engage me at that level, yet.

Why should we wait to see if it breaks the game? (By the way, I'm not saying CGs are bad, just the infinites. Let's keep it to that).

I kind of answered the question of imposing arbitrary limitations on competitive gameplay in my first post, so I'd read that.

Next, you say we shouldn't limit aspects of a character's game. We already have, though. We don't allow people to stall using their abilities to wait for someone to fall of the edge. Why? I would be unfair, and we need things for time limitations.

That's the main problem. It's not fair. No, unfair does not mean difficult. It means impossible. It is not possible for me as a DK player to do ANYTHING until I die when being infinited by DDD. It is not possible for me to do anything in the same conditions when an IC gets a ICG off on me. They aren't combos. They are insta-wins, and I spent 3 paragraphs explaining why that's not fair in my first post.

"From reading your first post, it seems like your entire argument boils down to: infinites are to easy to perform and are to hard to get by, the lopsided risk/reward situation means we should ban it."

That's part of it. But I'm mainly criticizing the act of an infinite itself, as you can see in the post before this. I don't care that it can be avoided. My argument is, that's not a justification for why infinites should exist.

And I think you need to recognize what I've been saying about infinites. They don't have the same nature as a strategy or a singular move. They're not like any of your examples (in fact, you even say during your examples that they are counterable/escapable). Infinites are not escapable or counterable (meaning, once you're in them). They are avoidable, and I think that distinction is critical. You can't L-cancel them, you can't tech them, you can't build some Terran structural defense to counter them, they're impossible to escape. That's why I don't think your examples hold water, at least to what we're talking about.

I hope that clears things up.

This brings back the question as to "How much is considered bannable?" Is it 4 consecutive CGs? Infiniting on a wall for more than 3 seconds? It all seems very abstract, "You're banned because you CG'ed with DDD until his stale moves took over! Baah!"

I answered this in the OP.

 

[Patsie]

Allow me to elaborate.
This entire topic consists of various intelligent and respectful users trying to explain to one upset, confused, or angry user why things are the way they are.
It will inevitably end in OP either accepting things as they are, or going elsewhere to complain.
He genuinely believes that some sort of change in rulings may come from this, when in reality, its just a waste of time and effort.

Sorry, just had to set things straight before I go.

I think you're misinterpereting what I'm saying. If you look at my original post, I am pretty courteous and I attempt to be rational.

I got out of hand because, if you look at Yuna's first post, he starts attacking me from nowhere. I was an *ss back to him, I'll admit, but only to him, and only for that reason.

I don't think that I'm going to get a rule changed or anything like that. Infinites have always bothered me, and I wrote down why here. I don't understand why you're so up in arms about that. I'm not trying to complain, I wanted to argue my case, and I think I did.

I also don't understand why you thought I was being such an *** aside from Yuna, I thought my other posts were pretty calm and straightforward.

But I'm not going to change how you think, because it won't happen and I don't want to invest the effort to do so.

 

[Foxy]

I have consistently said, though, that I'm attacking the theory behind the infinite. I don't care if it can be avoided early on. My question has always been 'Why is the concept of an inescapable death move allowed?' I can understand that you're saying there's no empirics to actually deal with it as of yet. And, to be honest, there probably won't be, because people seem to not try to get all their kills from infinites. I was discussing the theory behind the move, and, now, I understand that it's not appreciated as much. But, still, I don't think its been answered fully yet.

It was the developer's job to balance the game. Our task is to play within the bounds of mechanics and balancing that the creators provided.

To go about banning everything good is the first path on the step of corruption.

Variety is the spice of life.

With absolute power comes absolute corruption.

Death Note.

Sirlin, etc.




I honestly think the OP needs to master the IC's infinites (if he CAN), take them to a real tourney, and try to win. Once he sees that he didn't even come CLOSE, then maybe he'll understand why the infinites are not a problem in the least.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Allow me to elaborate.
This entire topic consists of various intelligent and respectful users trying to explain to one upset, confused, or angry user why things are the way they are.
It will inevitably end in OP either accepting things as they are, or going elsewhere to complain.
He genuinely believes that some sort of change in rulings may come from this, when in reality, its just a waste of time and effort.

How the topic will or will not end does not justify what you said earlier.
Simply justifying your act of flaming on such a thing is silly.
Wait when has flaming actually done something good in a discussion?
When did we start justifying immature behavior?

Why flame someone who has presented their argument and actually gone and attempted to justify it rather than go "LOL CG IS TEH BRKN IT NEDZ BNiNG!"?

If he has a belief debunk it rather than basically give him the finger and tell him to shut up.

 

[z3r0C0oL]

If someone infinites me, I just punch them in the nuts, hey, play to win right?

I have this to say to anyone who disagrees with my strategy: "Don't get punched in the nuts."

You sir , are my hero. I will use this AT at all times now.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

No we're not. These are very few and far inbetween and they're only banned when you can only win as them.


Only the infinite requires a set-up. It cannot be done at will.


What constitutes the best player? The one who learns how to infinite perfectly? The one who outcamps every as Snake? The one who picks Yoshi and manages to win by working 10 times as hard as everyone else?

Really, at what point do we stop? Also, no, we never banned anything because it "requires little skill".


Read what we've already said on this, please.


So we're capable of outplaying our opponent and we ban stuff because it's not about outplaying them. Then, what? Everyone except Yoshi is banned? Because then it's really about who's the best player since you only have one character to choose from.

No having to work harder because of a bad matchup!

Pastie was right. You are **** frustrating and a horrible debator. Any idiot knows that you don't base what to ban off of the game's weakest link. Yoshi isn't the standard by which others are judged, he's subpar. If you want to put yourself at a disadvantage by using a poor charcter, that's your choice, but most of the upper level chracters fight on fairly even footing making using them, specific character matchups aside, a fair fight.

Never did I say banning anything because it required "little skill." If you are going to debate something, please make sure someone actually said it, otherwise you look like an idiot.

Quite simply, infinites, by their very nature are broken. Stevie wonder could see that. What it does is essentially turn your oponent into a ragdoll incapable of doing anything.

And for the contorted argument "don't get grabbed," The match should NOT revolve around making sure that your enemy isn't going to try to ceat to beat you. trhat would be like playing a board game and constantly checking to make sure your opponent wasn't using a loaded die. if you don';t want him to beat you becuase he cheated, then don't let him use a loaded die.

"But sonic" you say, "loaded dice are against the rules" And, ah, there you have it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Quite simply, infinites, by their very nature are broken. Stevie wonder could see that.

I'm sure if he could find you, Stevie Wonder would go to your house and beat you up for saying that.

....

 

[Yuna]

Alright, I've been a bit too harsh in explanations, but I'm not even going to engage Yuna anymore. I've thought she was an idiot from her previous posts, and, since she's just completely devoid of intelligence and justifications for her arguments (if you could call them arguments), I don't want to waste my time.

Yuna, if you post intending me to respond, don't bother. I won't even glance at your mindless drivel. And did you seriously say, "He started it?" How old are you again?

Why yes, anytime someone says something you cannot refute, it must be drivel, unintelligent and whatever. I'm naturally witty, snarky and sarcastic. But at least I don't use CAPS, expletives and swear words.

Point taken. I understand I'm not going to change things with a post, but I wanted to know why people stand by infinites when I don't see anything behind them. I haven't even been affected by them, so I probably won't take the initiative to try and change them on my own. I will say, though, that I think it's hard to show results from banning infinites. The problem isn't really that huge, and most times people limit how many infinites they do, so my tourney videos wouldn't really prove anything. I'm just trying to attack the underlying logic.

We've told you why. Apparently, we're idiots for using said reasons (your words).

I realize it's easy to avoid the grab, and I've said before that it helps in avoiding the infinite. I'm not trying to fight that, as it stands now, "Don't get grabbed" is the only practical advice someone can get.

Umm... then how come it kinda sounded like you thought it was pretty hard to avoid grabs? Also, DeDeDe, while he has a large grab-range, is slow as heck. Just camp him. Nana can be easily camp as well.

I'm just trying to attack the underlying theory of infinites in general. I understand that they can be avoided, but I think people need to understand how completely changing a playstyle to avoid something as basic as a grab is detrimental. It seems like people understand that infinites are easy as hell to pull off, and they detest people who win through those means. I just don't get why they are tolerated.

No it's not. Plenty of characters forces people to completely change their playstyle. Pit, Falco, Fox and Wolf are perfect examples and to a lesser degree Toon Link because they're just to friggin' good at projectile camping. Toon Link's projectiles can be shielded pretty easily, Pit's, Falco's, Fox's and Wolf's? Not to much.

Ever seen a runaway SHL:er Falco or Fox in Melee? You cannot camp them. You have to approach them. And, heck, against Falco, you have to change how you approach as well.

How is it so friggin' detrimental to Competitive play if you have to alter your playstyle? It's really not. It's good for Competitive play since it forces you to be creative and to not play the exact same way against every single character in the game.

And how many times must I say:
How easy something is to pull off is inconsequential. It's all about the results they yield and how hard it is to actually hit with them. A combo, chaingrab or infinite isn't less broken, Competitively speaking if they're harder to do from a technical standpoint since the results are the same. And vice versa.

Basically, people are attacking me for saying "Don't get grabbed." isn't a viable strategy. It might work for some people. But it honestly seems like everyone who says it avoids the big pink elephant in the room: infinites still exist.

No one "attacked" you for that. We simply said "No, it's a good strategy, and this is why". Seriously, you seem to think that if anyone disagrees with you, they're attacking you.

That's why I got pissed at people simply saying don't get grabbed, because they seem to just ignore the fact that it's a band-aid fix on a gaping wound for infinites. I'm not saying people should complain about it during the match. I'm only trying to criticize why people perform or allow infinites in the first place.

You've blatantly ignored all of the points many of us have made about DeDeDe and Ice Climbers. It's quite easy to not get infinited by them, especially Ice Climbers. Just separate Nana. It doesn't take much. A friggin' tilt will do the job.

Wait, so what do you define broken as? What's more powerful than 0 to death?

If it's easy to get off, in other words, to initiate. If it works without a price and a requirement (Nana has to be alive and desynched), if it works on any stage and anywhere on said stage (i.e., not a chaingrab that you can DI towards the ledge or that requires a wall/walk-off) and if it works on every single character or at least 3/4 of them, then it's broken and bannable.

Personally, broken for me is something that can kill you without you being able to react. That's broken, because I don't have any say in how I actually influence the game EXCEPT the period before I'm grabbed.

Yes, but that's only against 5 characters for DeDeDe, like, 3 or so for Zamus and everyone for ICs if Nana is alive, desynched and close to Popo. Out of 703 possible matchups.

I understand that I influence the game before the infinite occurs. That's a good argument. The only problem is, it's ridiculously easy for me to lose influence over the game, because grabs are easy to pull off. If you play so that grabs aren't easy to pull off, you'll probably gimp yourself. But that doesn't even matter, really. What matters is the main concept behind infinites. That's all I'm trying to debate, whether they are any good for the game and their allowance in tournaments.

Grabs are not easy to pull off if you're being camped. Guess what, Nana and DeDeDe are easily camped.

We do not ban anything that's remotely bad. We ban things that are broken. It's not broken yet, hence, not banned. Annoying? Yes. Unfair? Yah. Broken? Nope.

So, true. You're right that I can influence the game in trying not to get grabbed. But I still don't think that solves the problem of infinites, because the fact is, they still occur once you are grabbed. And I'm just trying to say, they shouldn't be allowed to occur.

Why? Because it's good? Then where does it end? Ban 0-60% combos? 0-50%? 0-40%? Combos that end with a guaranteed finisher?

As to your IC post:
Fair enough, you've established that the ICG isn't easy to pull off. It requires certain conditions.

There are still other concerns though, and I guess this applies to what I just said before. You can avoid getting grabbed (just as you can kill Nana or disrupt stop ICGs from happening), but it still doesn't answer whether it should be ok to infinite people once the grab actually happens.

"It's not broken".

The difference comes from the infinite's name: you can repeat an infinite, well, infinitely. A combo is inescapable, true, but you are given time to react eventually. With an infinite, you're not. You just die, which is what the main problem is.

There are combos that don't allow you to do that. And, heck, IC's infinites have requirements:
* Nana is alive
* Nana is desynched
* Nana is close to Popo unless the opponent has, like, 50% at which point Nana has to be at least around the same area as Popo.

Now, there are some combos that can take you across an entire stage and dish out tons of damage. Squirtle's Up-tilt can do that against certain characters, I believe. All you need to do is hit with the right move at the right end of the stage.

So... ban/limit those combos if they start at one end of a stage?

 

[Yuna]

T_T on the first page yuna said we're not here to have fun, we are here to WIN


lol winning = fun and i have fun winning. loosing just makes me learn and motovates me to get better. if sakurai had this mindset online would be awsome and the game woulndt take an hour to fall from ur short hops.

Let me elaborate = We're not "here" (tournaments) exclusively to have fun. In a tournament, you have to be prepared to sacrifice "fun" to win. Sometimes, you have to do stuff that's not fun in order to win.

Competitive gaming is not about maximizing fun. Thus, we do not ban things because "they're boring" nor do we allow things because "they're more fun" (see: Final Smashes and items in general).

One can have fun gaming Competitively, the one is not mutual to the other. But Competitive gaming will never sacrifice Competitive viability for "fun" nor will we ban things that aren't blatantly broken to make things "more fun".

Dude, come on. That was your first argument against Brawl: the defensive game is too powerful due to a lack of viable approach options. You've said it over and over again in multiple threads. If I was a search *****, I'd pull up posts... but I'm actually supposed to be doing work right now. ^_^; Either way, you've been arguing both that camping is too powerful and that this overpowered shield-grab camp approach is boring as hell, which is why you prefer Melee. MANY other people echo your sentiment. Hell, I agree with you, which was one of the reasons I looked into items. It's also the reason I don't go around posting 'don't get grabbed' all the time.

It's "too good" and makes approaching useless if you can just outcamp them, yes. It still is.

Guess what, the best way to not get grabbed by DeDeDe and ICs is to camp them. There's nothing hypcoritical about complaining about Brawl being campy and defensive and saying "You can get around infinites"... because the best way to do that is to outcamp them. What's DeDeDe gonna do? He's a huge target just waiting to get camped.

Either shield-grabs and camping are vastly overpowered in Brawl, or they are very beatable. One or the other; arguing both is hypocrisy.

Shieldgrabs, no shieldstun and no shielddropstun makes approach next to useless as half of the cast and quite unsafe. But there's nothing hypocritical about saying this and saying there are ways to get around ICs' and DDD's infinites.

Hence, you're wrong.

EDIT: I never said you couldn't camp the IC's.

You claimed I was a hypocrite for saying "You can get around their grabs".

Ulevo: Yoshi's grab is still slow as heck, too. So if you're getting rabbed by Yoshi as Wario, then you deserve to get "infinited".

 

[MzNetta]

But I'm not going to change how you think, because it won't happen and I don't want to invest the effort to do so.

But youre investing so much effort in trying to change how everyone thinks about infinites, youve made this clear.
Its just a fruitless venture is all I'm trying to say.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@ Yuna: Just saying 'don't get grabbed' is very hypocritical if you don't give a way not to get grabbed. You've fixed the problem by qualifying your statements since then by saying 'don't get grabbed by doing this', but it still stands that the statement 'don't get grabbed' on its own is hypocrisy if you (not you per se, you know what I mean) keep saying that grabs are overpowered.

 

[Yuna]

Pastie was right. You are **** frustrating and a horrible debator. Any idiot knows that you don't base what to ban off of the game's weakest link. Yoshi isn't the standard by which others are judged, he's subpar. If you want to put yourself at a disadvantage by using a poor charcter, that's your choice, but most of the upper level chracters fight on fairly even footing making using them, specific character matchups aside, a fair fight.

Then don't put yourself at a disadvantage by choosing Bowser against DeDeDe. It's a poor matchup. Don't do it.

Are you saying that infinites would be fine if they worked only on the weakest links? Yoshi sucks because he just sucks against everyone. Bowser sucks because he's not that good anyway and he really sucks against DeDeDe. Big whoop.

Never did I say banning anything because it required "little skill." If you are going to debate something, please make sure someone actually said it, otherwise you look like an idiot.

You said "the best player should win". I merely elaborated on that, asking "what constitutes the best player"? The one who's technically the best? The one with the best mindgames? The one with the lowest tiered character? Seriously, where do we stop banning things to ensure that "the best player" always wins?

Quite simply, infinites, by their very nature are broken. Stevie wonder could see that. What it does is essentially turn your oponent into a ragdoll incapable of doing anything.

They can be broken, but if they're not broken enough, then they won't be banned. DeDeDe can infinite 5 characters. That's 5 bad matchups. ICs have requires, so they can't infinite from every single grab... not to mention they ain't all that without the many chaingrabs and infinites, anyway.

And for the contorted argument "don't get grabbed," The match should NOT revolve around making sure that your enemy isn't going to try to ceat to beat you. trhat would be like playing a board game and constantly checking to make sure your opponent wasn't using a loaded die. if you don';t want him to beat you becuase he cheated, then don't let him use a loaded die.

You saying it's cheating =/= It's cheating
Infiniting someone =/= Using a loaded die
Constantly trying to not get grabbed =/= Constantly checking your opponent isn't breaking the rules

 

[Yuna]

@ Yuna: Just saying 'don't get grabbed' is very hypocritical if you don't give a way not to get grabbed. You've fixed the problem by qualifying your statements since then by saying 'don't get grabbed by doing this', but it still stands that the statement 'don't get grabbed' on its own is hypocrisy if you (not you per se, you know what I mean) keep saying that grabs are overpowered.

I never said shieldgrabs are overpowered. I said shieldgrabbing is easier and your defensive options are now overpowered because of how the game was changed.

I never said "shiedlgrabbing is in itself broken now!". Also, it's not hypocritical. It's just not elaborating because some people had already done so for me. However, I elaborated some more upon you questioning me. It was never hypocritical. It was lazy, though.

 

[W-man]

I would'nt be proud for winning a tourney while putting my foe to 70 % with an infinite.

End of interference.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

I would'nt be proud for winning a tourney while putting my foe to 70 % with an infinite.

End of interference.

People will just tell you that the play to win mentality requires that you ditch pride entirely and use the 70% chain grab (it's not an infinite if it doesn't go to an infinite percent, silly) in order to win if you have to (or even if you don't have to).

 

[Yuna]

I would'nt be proud for winning a tourney while putting my foe to 70 % with an infinite.

End of interference.

There's pride... and then there's that 700 dollar 1st prize money.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

so we should do ANYTHING to win? sounds like you'd endorse bank robbery if you had to.

You said "the best player should win". I merely elaborated on that, asking "what constitutes the best player"? The one who's technically the best? The one with the best mindgames? The one with the lowest tiered character? Seriously, where do we stop banning things to ensure that "the best player" always wins?

no you actually came right out and said "nothing has been banned because it requires little skill" or something like that. Which I never said anything about in the first time.

Thank you so much for answering a question not asked and then answering a question not asked again as a response to being called out on it. Your wisdom is awe inspiring.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I would'nt be proud for winning a tourney while putting my foe to 70 % with an infinite.

End of interference.

But does that matter? Competitions aren't for fun or pride. They're for winning. Your feelings about how prideful you would feel for winning a tournament isn't even relevant to the argument.

In a tournament setting, anything goes. Infinites, dare I say, actually take some skill to use. It would be like saying we should have banned wavedashing from Melee. It's just stupid.

 

[Harbinger631]

If infinities that are really easy to perform and dominate the meta-game, then Brawl is not a competitive game, simple as that. If you want a competitive experience, you'd best look someone else, or hope that there is a definitive banning measure. I don't think "You can't do infinities" is a very good ban because it can be interpurted many different "toe the line" ways as previously mentioned. You would have to ban Dedede, or whoever has the infinite.

Since I don't see Dedede absolutely DOMINATING every match (he's a real threat to be reckoned with though), play should go on. I think we'll find ways to effectively fight Dedede, it'll take time.

 

[Yuna]

no you actually came right out and said "nothing has been banned because it requires little skill" or something like that. Which I never said anything about in the first time.

Thank you so much for answering a question not asked and then answering a question not asked again as a response to being called out on it. Your wisdom is awe inspiring.

It was connected to what you said?

"The one with the most skill should win" = Chaingrabbing and infiniting require no skill. So it's not just about what's broken and what's not, it's also about what takes skill and what doesn't? Or what exactly did you mean by that statement?

 

[W-man]

I don't live in a candy world ; but I tend to think Brawl isn't designed for some characters to repeatedly use a move and unmistakebly win. That's just a pity for the whole high-level gaming.