Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[Yuna]

I main shiek along with Zelda... so yes... and your video was a bad example of your point since it was almost entirely chaingrabs... which is what I said should be banned.

if it wasn't a chain grab, it was a wall combo... and, walls ARE banned.

only think that didn't fit that was the shiek ftilit combo which doesn't work like it's shown in videos. The Ftilt lock can be escaped rather easily for the first hit or so of the combo for one thing... which automatically makes it fair game: even after initiated, the oponent has a chance to break out.
if you don't break out in thos few frames, you can still DI out, you'll get hit a few times first, but the combo is far from infinite and wont work at high damages.

Also, even at low damages, it barely "locks" anyone in it at all... Any non space animal can get out with minimal DI after maybe one or two hits.

so yeah:
-Chaingrabs that have the potential to be infinite: broken
-shiek's Ftilt... not so much,

but thank you for playing maybe next time.

Much like how DeDeDe's chaingrabs on 5 characters (which are not standing infinites because he's actually dashgrabbing) is overpowered on those five alone, Sheik's F-tilt is overpowered on fastfallers. F-tilt x tons of times into Usmash and you just got them from 0 or near 0 to 100%+. Fair? Should we ban that combo against the fastfallers because it's just "too good"?

 

[En.Ee.Oh]

Hey look Yuna, you've continued your streak of being absolutely ********! You're over 6000 now, 3000 more and people will be shouting that lame meme at your stupidity!

That pretty much did it for me




ROFL

 

[Jack Kieser]

How could you possibly enforce a "only this many chaingrabs clause."

It's hard... REALLY hard. Extremely, time-consumingly, money-wastingly hard. But not impossible.

 

[The_NZA]

Read what i posted. There are rare opporrtunities where you dont know if someone is intentionally chaingrabbing. Also, I think enforcement is hardly the matter.

 

[Foxy]

It's hard... REALLY hard. Extremely, time-consumingly, money-wastingly hard. But not impossible.

Sounds about the same as avoiding the infinites.

 

[nitnit]

but isn't the case normally (as in with games other than smash) to be overly harsh as opposed to overly lenient?

IE ban all chaingrabs of any length as opposed to allowing them all or making an arbitrary "only this many chaingrabs" clause

What is chaingrabbing? Using more than 1 grab at a time? If this is the case then people will simply find a new tactic to abuse (Camping, or something else).

Also, I wanted to point out that from what I understand, Metaknight and Snake will be the apex of the top tier, neither of whom have chain grabs.


(Disclaimer about tier statement: I don't have backroom access since this site has to hide that place from anyone they don't view as worthy AKA 95% of users.. Seriously, why not allow only directors to post, and let everyone see the info? Would kill a lot of ignorance)

 

[rathy Aro]

I agree with most of Yuna's original post, but it assumes (actually states) that winning is the most important thing in competitive gaming. That's not even close to true. How you win and what it takes to win is largely important. You can argue that Brawl's flaws are the fault of the designers, but that's no reason not to fix something blatently broken and that can be fixed.

How much skill an infinite takes is inconsequential. If an infinite is possible, then it has to be banned if it's broken, even if it's hard to do. How often do you see Chu Dat screw up Wobbling on the few occasions he actually does it?

That's true, but the game, ideally, is supposed to reward practice and experience with victory. If someone who got the game last week and only practiced shield grabbing and infinites could probably take most DK's with DDD.

 

[Ekoix.exe]

You have an convincing argument, But I ask you, why not just ban everyone who is deemed "Cheap". You must ban all grabbing done by any character that can combo with it. (DDD, Falco, IC, Pikachu, Ganondorf (Downthrow to a facegrab), Marth (Down throw to a short hop fair). In all fairness, With the exception of IC, or Laser locking is infinite. Even then, besides Laser locking, IC need to have good timing after they hit higher percentage grabbing.

Why not ban camping? Because its a viable strategy, the same goes with chain grabbing, In all of the brawl games, there were times where you were rendered helpless in the midsts of a combo because of the games physics system. In brawl, the aerial combat is more flexible now, but your still able to "Render someone useless" with chain grabbing or certain combos. It is something that happens in every game, FPS (Snipers with AWP's camping with smiles on their faces) Other action games (Hadouken anyone? Corner ****** anyone?). It might be frustrating to play against someone who is well experianced in shutting your control of your character down, but in my eye's its something that SHOULD be acceptable.

 

[Yuna]

Also, I wanted to point out that from what I understand, Metaknight and Snake will be the apex of the top tier, neither of whom have chain grabs.

Snake does... only, it's very situational (needs to be facing the edge... and right next to it).

I agree with most of Yuna's original post, but it assumes (actually states) that winning is the most important thing in competitive gaming. That's not even close to true. How you win and what it takes to win is largely important. You can argue that Brawl's flaws are the fault of the designers, but that's no reason not to fix something blatently broken and that can be fixed.

Competitive gaming is about winning. What you're willing to do to win is largely individual. I wouldn't IC alternate grab/some other IC ****z to win, but that's just me. I'll defend Hylian's right to do so, though.

That's true, but the game, ideally, is supposed to reward practice and experience with victory. If someone who got the game last week and only practiced shield grabbing and infinites could probably take most DK's with DDD.

Then what about the practice and experience that DDD invested into learning how to time that chaingrab perfectly? Also, "most" DK's who are any good won't let themselves be chaingrabbed to death repeatedly. When they go up against DDD, they'll know that one single grab can lead to a KO and they will try to avoid this at any cost by camping and doing safe stuff.

Annoying? Yes. Hard? Yes. Impossible? Hell no. In order to get a grab in, the DDD will have to actually outwit the DK (or the DK just screws up monumentally!). It's just an advantage on DDD's part. The matchup isn't even 10-0 even with the CG AFAIK.

Sarcasm

We should ban tripping. If at any time, you trip and are hit and it's deemed you didn't have enough of a window to react to it, then the match is restarted.

Unfair advantage!

 

[Yuna]

Yuna you are completely wrong. Competitive gaming is about finding the best at an art.

How do you become the best? By winning. Be if "honourably" or by playing "cheap".

Not about winning. If it was just about winning, there is no reason why we WOULDN'T put on items.

Um... yes. Because we want to win by what we do, not what the game thinks we should receive through random spawn.

Is chaingrabbing DK to death as D3 cheap? Yeah. But it ain't random.

We take out variables to see who is the best with the best characters.

D3's chaingrab makes him one of the best characters to fight DK as.

Albeit, its not equal opportunity for everyone. There ARE tiers. But still, if something is deemed broken, it is taken out.

Only, we deemed these things not broken. You can try to change our minds, yeah. But so far, no sufficient evidence has been put forth.

You act like there weren't banned techniques in Melee. You act like the IC freeze glitch never existed. And btw Yuna, I thought you'd like to see this.

I never said nothing was ever banned. I even said that we ban things that break the game and force you to play as a select few characters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tztxdBpl-Zw

On a computer, which I'm pretty doesn't combine Smash with tap-DI:ing. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not even saying you can do it every single time even if you're good at it. I'm saying: It's possible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I could be, but I'm pretty sure I'm not).

 

[old king coal]

although i agree with most of what yuna has to say... when someone counterpicks D3 against your DK in a tournament, are you allowed to change from DK if you won the previous match? if not...

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

If it were all about winning and nothing about skill, then items, time battles, 4 person free for alls and all stages would be allowed too right?

 

[Foxy]

If it were all about winning and nothing about skill, then items, time battles, 4 person free for alls and all stages would be allowed too right?

Who says skill has nothing to do with winning?

Winning just isn't about proving skill.

Skill can, however, make winning more reliable. Winning is less reliable in item matches, FFA's, stages with hazards, and time matches, where there are more random factors.

 

[bman in 2288]

Winning and skill go hand in hand, yes, but since the community attempts to play this game as a pure fighter, they try to omit parts of the game that they can from being random, or like it was mentioned earlier, the enablers of cheap infinites. As a fighting game, there's a difference from playing honorably and playing to win. There are tourney-specific rules that attempt to limit cheapness, but this "honor" you are talking about can be boiled down to a player playing on self-imposed limits that stop the advancement of their game potential. AKA casual play.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Who says skill has nothing to do with winning?

Winning just isn't about proving skill.

Skill can, however, make winning more reliable. Winning is less reliable in item matches, FFA's, stages with hazards, and time matches, where there are more random factors.

also with broken tactics like infinites allowed

 

[Exia 00]

Which is why "Don't get grabbed," is a perfectly viable argument.

objection!!!

(i always wanted to say that)

i hate when people say dont get grabbed! although it is not impossible it is unreasonable to just say dont get grabbed when the hipocryte that first said that probably
gets grabbed 24/7.to be honest its not my place to say if its in or out but i thought competetive gaming was about using skills to win and not about winning by something so broken.im pretty sur someone on this thread said that things that break the game get banned

 

[The_NZA]

Can anyone wiht Back room access verify that this is a signfiicant topic of discussion in the Back Room?

 

[Yuna]

although i agree with most of what yuna has to say... when someone counterpicks D3 against your DK in a tournament, are you allowed to change from DK if you won the previous match? if not...

No, since the winner has to pick their character first. However, if you just won as DK and suspect a D3 counterpick, you're free to switch characters (with Advanced Slob Picks, the most frequently used Pick, that is).

 

[Zankoku]

Hi guys! I woke up and found out this discussion is still going on.

Person who mentioned about nine matchups never happening in high-level play... Guess how many matchups almost never saw play in high-level Melee?
Sheik vs Ganondorf
Sheik vs Link
Sheik vs Roy
Sheik vs Young Link
Sheik vs Pikachu
Sheik vs Yoshi
Sheik vs Ness
Sheik vs Bowser
Sheik vs Pichu
Marth vs Pikachu
Marth vs Mewtwo
Fox vs Link
Fox vs Bowser
Falco vs Zelda
Falco vs Mr. Game & Watch
Falco vs Ness
Falco vs Bowser
Ice Climbers vs Pichu

The list goes on and on. Hell, a good deal of Sheik vs Anyone doesn't happen simply because of the chaingrab that happens. Banning infinites/chaingrabs (Dedede's chaingrab doesn't infinite most characters on stages without walls) just because they cause a poor matchup is not good reasoning. Banning infinites because they cause the game to be unwinnable in any situation except using them yourself is. However, you'd need proof from a tournament setting to show that it's come to that.

 

[Tien2500]

Well if those matches never happened in high level Melee play because of sheik's chaingrab maybe the chaingrab should be banned. But looking at that list its mostly just crappy characters ever. Unless the metagame changes significantly I doubt we'd see Falcon vs Metaknight at a high level Brawl tournament but thats just because Falcon isn't very good overall not because of one arguably cheap tactic that could be removed. Obviously we can't just I'm not really familar with most of the chaingrabs in Melee though so I can't really comment too much on the topic.

 

[z3r0C0oL]

People dont want items or final smashes or certain stages because it gives certain characters advantages. Infinites give characters advantages, so if someone insist on chain grabbing being fair, then so can Final Smahes, stages with walls, and items. Those after all were meant to be in the game. Infinite exploits were not.

 

[xenero]

I saw a match recently when someone teched out of DDD's D-Throw. I forgot which character but can most characters do that?

 

[Winston]

If it were all about winning and nothing about skill, then items, time battles, 4 person free for alls and all stages would be allowed too right?

Sigh, stop being so literal.

The REAL point is that it's not all about ARBITRARY and SUBJECTIVE opinion-based evaluation about what's skillful and what's not.

It's about letting the metrics of the game (i.e. who wins after random elements are kept to a minimum) show who's more skillful.

If the game is any good, doing it that way should also be fun. Melee sure as hell was.

 

[Tien2500]

People dont want items or final smashes or certain stages because it gives certain characters advantages. Infinites give characters advantages, so if someone insist on chain grabbing being fair, then so can Final Smahes, stages with walls, and items. Those after all were meant to be in the game. Infinite exploits were not.

Nope. Items don't give anyone an advantage. Final Smashes do but thats not the reason they're banned. They've banned because of the random nature of it. A golden hammer could spawn near you and other such things. Or A smash ball could appear close to you etc. Thats why theire banned. Certain characters have advantages. And while items and such are allowed in the game the designers gave you the option to shut them off so that argument doesn't hold.

 

[Yuna]

Well if those matches never happened in high level Melee play because of sheik's chaingrab maybe the chaingrab should be banned. But looking at that list its mostly just crappy characters ever. Unless the metagame changes significantly I doubt we'd see Falcon vs Metaknight at a high level Brawl tournament but thats just because Falcon isn't very good overall not because of one arguably cheap tactic that could be removed. Obviously we can't just I'm not really familar with most of the chaingrabs in Melee though so I can't really comment too much on the topic.

So an infinite is OK if it's against a Bottom Tier character but not against a non-garbage character?

It's OK to have unbeatable advantages against Captain Falcon but not against Ness? Ganondorf is super-garbage against Pit because he gets so easily camped to death. Just like that, Ness is super garbage against Marth because of the grab-release.

People dont want items or final smashes or certain stages because it gives certain characters advantages. Infinites give characters advantages, so if someone insist on chain grabbing being fair, then so can Final Smahes, stages with walls, and items. Those after all were meant to be in the game. Infinite exploits were not.

Final Smashes would give certain character unsurmountable advantages against everyone. Infinites are character dependent (unless we're talking about ICs).

And nobody cares what was "meant" to be in the game. If we were to play with only what we're sure is "meant" to be in the game, we'd have to ban every single AT as most of them are obvious glitches.

 

[Tien2500]

I saw a match recently when someone teched out of DDD's D-Throw. I forgot which character but can most characters do that?

Some characters cannot be chaingrabbed by Dedede. Squirtle, Kirby, Metaknight, ZSS, and Jiggly are all too light and/or floaty to chain.

 

[kin3tic-c4jun-3]

It's a shame that the game gets dumbed down into a grab fest but it doesn't look like there will be a ban.

But... what exactly is required for a ban? I always thought that unintended exploits/glitches that gave a (huge) advantage were supposed to be ban-worthy? What would make chaingrabbing bannable?

 

[Yuna]

It's a shame that the game gets dumbed down into a grab fest but it doesn't look like there will be a ban.

But... what exactly is required for a ban? I always thought that unintended exploits/glitches that gave a (huge) advantage were supposed to be ban-worthy? What would make chaingrabbing bannable?

So we shouldn't ban it if it's an intended mechanic?

We ban things when they break the game. A good example would be if you're forced to play as a single character (or possibly a select 3) in order to stand even a chance of winning. Imagine if DeDeDe could infinite every single character in the game, including the IC's, somehow, without ever having to move forward inbetween grabs (hence, no chance of tripping) and because of this, also on any stage, including sloping stages.

No possible way to DI or tech or whatever, one grab and you die. Then we'd ban it (or him).

 

[Zankoku]

If we shouldn't ban something intended, then Dedede's chaingrab is fine. It's got fixed knockback, how could testing not have shown one dthrow leads into another?

 

[Tien2500]

It's a shame that the game gets dumbed down into a grab fest but it doesn't look like there will be a ban.

But... what exactly is required for a ban? I always thought that unintended exploits/glitches that gave a (huge) advantage were supposed to be ban-worthy? What would make chaingrabbing bannable?

What is or is not bannable is up to the tournament director ultimately. Generally something is banned when it limits the metagame to the point where it is the only viable tactic. (or the only viable character). This is not the case with chaingrabbing. Which isn't saying I wouldn't ban it. I think personally that the game is better without chain grabs but it certain isn't broken with them in the game.

 

[Exia 00]

If we shouldn't ban something intended, then Dedede's chaingrab is fine. It's got fixed knockback, how could testing not have shown one dthrow leads into another?

is D3's chaingrab that much of a problem ? Honestly i only would complain if i got chaingrabed into a wall

 

[Matador]

This has been a very interesting read, but I find that a few things haven't been addressed. I would like to offer up the perspective of the unlucky 5 that are vulnerable to ddd's infinite, since there are few here that main them.

Though I believe IC's infinite is broken, there are viable strategies around this; thus, I don't believe this infinite should be banned. HOWEVER, there are 5 characters on the brawl roster that are, in an instant, now no longer able to participate in tournament play. Mario, Luigi, Bowser, DK, and Samus all have an unwinnable matchup, and cannot ever win a tournament. This has been overlooked throughout the entire thread as a reason to ban ddd's infinite. There's no reasonable strategy that could give any of these 5 a chance at winning this matchup. Since I main Mario, if someone counterpicks ddd, I must counterpick as well. There is no possible way for me to win a tournament as Mario.

 

[PK Hexagon]

If we shouldn't ban something intended, then Dedede's chaingrab is fine. It's got fixed knockback, how could testing not have shown one dthrow leads into another?

Adding to that, there's no way the Ice Climbers' chain grabs weren't intended. They're so choreographed and difficult, and yet, they don't look anything like an oversight.

making an arbitrary "only this many chaingrabs" clause

Way too much effort for way too little reward. The rules state no more than 5 regrabs on DK? No problem. D3 regrabs 4 times, throws DK and then camps until DK has to approach again, where he'll repeat the process. It'll be the same result, only far more tedious.

 

[Matador]

Way too much effort for way too little reward. The rules state no more than 5 regrabs on DK? No problem. D3 regrabs 4 times, throws DK and then camps until DK has to approach again, where he'll repeat the process. It'll be the same result, only far more tedious.

So you ban ddd's infinites. problem solved

 

[Tristan Fattest of All Kids]

Don't get grabbed.

wow.
reality check...

 

[fkacyan]

wow.
reality check...

Reality check my ***.

One of the better ROBs in my area plays D3s on a regular basis. He doesn't get chaingrabbed that often, and when he does, it never kills him.

Don't get grabbed is a perfectly viable piece of advice against a legal mechanic. If it was as easy to die by these as people are suggesting, there would be FAR more ICs winning as they can CG every character except other ICs.

 

[PK Hexagon]

So you ban ddd's infinites. problem solved

You're not listening, lol.

 

[Matador]

Reality check my ***.

One of the better ROBs in my area plays D3s on a regular basis. He doesn't get chaingrabbed that often, and when he does, it never kills him.

Don't get grabbed is a perfectly viable piece of advice against a legal mechanic. If it was as easy to die by these as people are suggesting, there would be FAR more ICs winning as they can CG every character except other ICs.

The ROB in your area doesn't have to worry about infinites from ddd, which is what this thread is about. If it DID kill him and there was no possible way to escape after being grabbed, then "Don't get grabbed" would not be a perfectly viable piece of advice.

Edit: PK Hexagon, explain where I'm ignorant of the previously stated standpoints on how limiting CGs would be too difficult to enforce. Banning them altogether would be much easier to enforce. After all, it's only 5 characters right?

 

[gods_basement]

some heated discussion here

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

i phail at competitive brawl, but this is what sirlin has to say. Ice climbers are still C-D rank on that tournament pseudo-tier list, so until it is abused to death, then it shouldn't be banned.

its just theory-craft you're doing, OP. You just said you've never been IC chaingrabbed before.

 

[PraKirJaq]

The reason why we don't ban infinites, is because it isn't gamebreaking. Who cares if it doesn't win tournaments alone?

I could say "Ike's F-Smash is broken. If I get hit, I lose a stock automatically with [insert character here]." The only difference I see is that infinites take up more time and hits while Ike's F-Smash is only one hit. You may say: "But you can avoid Ike's F-Smash." But that's the same thing that Yuna's been saying the entire time. You can prevent a grab just as you could prevent eating Ike's F-Smash. Or, that's the way I see it.