Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[SwastikaPyle]

We're not here to have fun. We're here to win.

Ow.
That sentence right there is what causes the gigantic rift between competitive and casual players.

 

[Matador]

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.

Ike's Fsmash is slow and doesn't kill at 0%. Infinites are intiated with grabs, which are much faster. And of course you can prevent an Fsmash just like you could prevent a grab, but should you have to center your entire play style around avoiding this one attack to prevent instantly losing a stock to a technique that's clearly broken? No, I don't believe you should.

Also, how do you know that all of the unlucky 5 who are vulnerable to ddd's infinites aren't being eliminated early from tourneys because of this? None of them are doing particularly well even though all of them show potential at least equal to Sonic. The fact of the matter is that at every professional tournament, if I even THINK about using any of the unlucky 5, I know that I'll be counterpicked, and that using that character won't be possible because the match is unwinnable.

 

[PK Hexagon]

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?

No. Because banning D3's CG also means banning Falco's, and IC's, and Pikachu's and Lucarios. And if we ban those, we have to ban Shiek's F-Tilt lock on principle as it's nearly the same concept, and the chain will continue. You have to understand, as a community we're already considered ban happy. We ban items, stages, and now there are people trying to get us to ban techs, as well.

We can't just outlaw everything. Escpecially something like this that doesn't even break the game. It just makes those 7 characters unplayable in a high tournament setting.

 

[Matador]

No. Because banning D3's CG also means banning Falco's, and IC's, and Pikachu's and Lucarios. And if we ban those, we have to ban Shiek's F-Tilt lock on principle as it's nearly the same concept, and the chain will continue. You have to understand, as a community we're already considered ban happy. We ban items, stages, and now there are people trying to get us to ban techs, as well.

We can't just outlaw everything. Escpecially something like this that doesn't even break the game. It just makes those 7 characters unplayable in a high tournament setting.

I said infinite, not CG. The grabs that do 0 to Death after just one grab aside from IC's should be banned. CGs are fine with me.

 

[Foxy]

It doesn't need a ban until it starts affecting tourney results.

Until then, there are obviously better strategies players are using to win than chaingrabbing and infiniting.

 

[PK Hexagon]

I said infinite, not CG. The grabs that do 0 to Death after just one grab aside from IC's should be banned. CGs are fine with me.

Yes......and I said this:

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.

At what point is a chaingrab an infinite? Technically, D3 has no infinites since he moves forward slightly each time he regrabs. Eventually, he would run out of room. 5 grabs, 50% of damage, 30 seconds worth of grabs, whatever the limit is people will stop just before it, and then camp (after all, he doesn't have to approach, he has an advantage), making the match far more tedious for nearly the same result.

Once again, bad match ups in fighting games aren't a new concept.

 

[Matador]

It doesn't need a ban until it starts affecting tourney results.

Until then, there are obviously better strategies players are using to win than chaingrabbing and infiniting.

Can ddd infinite Snake or MK? No.
Can ddd infinite Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, and Samus? Yes.
Have Snake and MK been doing good in tourneys? Yes.
Have Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, or Samus been doing good in tourneys? No.
Could this possibly be because they're counterpicked by ddd? Yes.
Does this mean that it could possibly be affecting tourney results? Yes.

I'm not saying that this is the only reason that these characters haven't won that many tourneys, but these characters now have unwinnable matchups. Not bad, but unwinnable due to an AT that's clearly broken. I think that calls for a ban.

Edit: PK Hexagon, these are not bad matchups. These are matchups where one grab = one stock. The ICs infinite is easier to avoid than ddd's because of his grab range, nana's bad AI, and the difficulty of it. ddd's is much more difficult because he has much better grab range, no nana to rely upon, and isn't difficult to pull off at all. All it requires is one grab, and half a brain to infinite.

Also, are you trying to tell me that you can't find a distinction between an infinite and a CG? So how did tourney officials enforce banning wobbling in melee in the tourneys where it was prohibited?

 

[Tien2500]

No. Because banning D3's CG also means banning Falco's, and IC's, and Pikachu's and Lucarios. And if we ban those, we have to ban Shiek's F-Tilt lock on principle as it's nearly the same concept, and the chain will continue. You have to understand, as a community we're already considered ban happy. We ban items, stages, and now there are people trying to get us to ban techs, as well.

We can't just outlaw everything. Escpecially something like this that doesn't even break the game. It just makes those 7 characters unplayable in a high tournament setting.

So it makes 7 characters unplayable in a tournament setting? Thats 1/5 of the cast. That is a significant chunk of the cast. Its significant enough that we should take this matter into consideration.

As for if 5 grabs is the limit... Then that'd be different. If Dedede was only able to grab 4 times per chain he could do about 40% damage for each time he grabs DK which is a big difference from an instant stock loss. Of you could say regrabbing them once constitutes an infinite.

 

[Foxy]

Can ddd infinite Snake or MK? No.
Can ddd infinite Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, and Samus? Yes.
Have Snake and MK been doing good in tourneys? Yes.
Have Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, or Samus been doing good in tourneys? No.
Could this possibly be because they're counterpicked by ddd? Yes.
Does this mean that it could possibly be affecting tourney results? Yes.

I'm not saying that this is the only reason that these characters haven't won that many tourneys, but these characters now have unwinnable matchups. Not bad, but unwinnable due to an AT that's clearly broken. I think that calls for a ban.

First off, DK has been doing well in tourneys. Second, Luigi has been doing decently.

Third, they aren't unwinnable matchups. It may seem like it, but take your DDD to a tournament with better player than you and you aren't going to win a single game against people playing those characters.

Snake and MK have been placing much better than DDD without a reliable infinite. Why? Because they have things BETTER than infinites. What's that, you say? Nothing's better than an infinite? Well, the Mach Tornado and Snake's ftilt beg to differ. They may not lock your opponent in place but they certainly are more important than a grab.

The only major DDD win recently was M2K's over Azen. M2K is arguably one of the best in the world, so this piece of data holds absolutely no weight.

By affecting tournament results, I mean that players of sub-bar caliber are beating better players with chaingrabs and infinites.

EDIT: I forgot to commend you for actually making the first good argument I've heard, even if it was flawed. Even with the flaws, though, you were right, it is "possibly" affecting results by that logic. If you go to a tourney, you'll see that it doesn't, but that doesn't mean your theorycraft isn't correct.

 

[Patsie]

****, I might actually have to agree with Yuna for the most part here. Usually I'd love to jump on the wagon about how (s)he always dismisses whatever arguments are difficult, and makes completely unrelated retorts... but regardless... OP is also an idiot.

How exactly does one define an infinite/unfair chaingrab? If it's using 10 throws, then it would make perfectly logical sense to stop at 9, still giving an advantage. Is it using more than 2 throws in a row? If so then using "doublethrows" will be the new chain grab. It doesn't matter what you do, Brawl is a game of many different fighting styles, even more so than Melee. This is brawl's biggest strength, making it a unique fighting experience, and also its biggest weakness; the more diverse characters are, the easier it is to create unfair advantages.

While chain grabbing and infinites are gamebreaking, and damage brawl's viability, creating very shaky limitations also do. The only true solution to what is being complained about is to force players to use the same character as each other every match. And yes, I do think that's a rather ****ty solution.

Haha, I think it's pretty funny that you think I'm an idiot. I answered your first little question in my original post that you're blasting, because I anticipated that trolls would try throwing the same old garbage as a refute. Check out: brightline.

An infinite ability is one that cannot be escaped out of regardless of circumstance. The main one's I'm criticizing are the Ice Climber's ICG and DDD's standing (yes, standing, he only has to move with Samus so I'm not sure what certain Swedes are talking about) infinite chain on 5 characters. You don't need to repeat the move indefinitely for it to be an infinite (most just get to a good killing %), but when the chain begins, you're using an infinite technique. Basically, that means that DDD shouldn't be allowed to grab those 5 characters at the exact moment (not when they're on the ground, but in the air where they can't escape) that allows for the infinite for a second time. An IC's player can't grab using the other Ice Climber after the first throw at that moment. It's pretty specific, that's a fine enough brightline. There are infinites and there are chaingrabs, and if you cared to read any of my posts, you'd know what that is.

As a second response to you and a general question for everyone:

How badly did stalling affect tournament play until it was banned?

I legitimately don't know much about the early Melee scene, but if I had to guess, the vast majority of games were not won through stalling tactics. Sure, some big finals games may have been won through it, I think that's a fair assumption. But I highly doubt they were used every round, and I know for a fact at no point did Jigglypuff ever completely dominate Melee at all (despite having best stall, rising pound), right? BUT: We banned stalling.

AlphaZealot/Yuna: If my assumptions are true, then why are you claiming you can only ban something once it severely affects tournament play? How much are you looking for? I'm not saying that it wasn't effectively used ever, but I am saying that it never got to the point that you guys are describing (almost all tournaments being won using it). You have really unfair qualifications on what moves should be banned.

I would also love for someone to clear up exactly how stalling got banned, because it seems to me like it would be something the backroom debated.

Now into my response: let's take a look at stalling again.

I've already answered the reason for why 'this ban is not enforcible' isn't true, but maybe you guys should put it into perspective. We ban stalling tactics in tournaments. We didn't need to come up with a truckload of theory (like, 'JigglyPuff is considered stalling when and only when x y and z conditions are met...' etc) to implement it. Basically, the tournament directors knew stalling when they saw it , and they enforced it likewise.

Why can't infinite banning function the exact same way? It seems like you'd have to be against the way we implement a stalling ban to be against an implementation of a infinite ban. I've already given the brightlines for where we can enforce it above, but it seems to me like everyone's been fine so far with tournament directors calling the shots; why can't this apply to infinites?

And I was just wondering:

Who here legitimately thinks that infinites SHOULD be a part of the game, and all characters that have them should exercise them whenever they get the option?

For that matter, who here doesn't think that 'don't get grabbed' is a stupid quote that people use the mask the actual, real issue of infinites?

 

[Miller]

Scrubs, why are they allowed to complain.

Your just sad that a IC owned you at a tournament, Ive seen It happen so many times

 

[Matador]

First off, DK has been doing well in tourneys. Second, Luigi has been doing decently.

Third, they aren't unwinnable matchups. It may seem like it, but take your DDD to a tournament with better player than you and you aren't going to win a single game against people playing those characters.

Snake and MK have been placing much better than DDD without a reliable infinite. Why? Because they have things BETTER than infinites. What's that, you say? Nothing's better than an infinite? Well, the Mach Tornado and Snake's ftilt beg to differ. They may not lock your opponent in place but they certainly are more important than a grab.

The only major DDD win recently was M2K's over Azen. M2K is arguably one of the best in the world, so this piece of data holds absolutely no weight.

By affecting tournament results, I mean that players of sub-bar caliber are beating better players with chaingrabs and infinites.

EDIT: I forgot to commend you for actually making the first good argument I've heard, even if it was flawed. Even with the flaws, though, you were right, it is "possibly" affecting results by that logic. If you go to a tourney, you'll see that it doesn't, but that doesn't mean your theorycraft isn't correct.

So, tell me this. If Snake and MK were vulnerable to ddd's infinite, do you think they'd be doing half as well as they are now? I'm not saying that infinites make ddd the best character, because they don't. He can only infinite lower tier characters either way, and the IC infinite is far more avoidable than his.

Also, if I took my ddd to a tournament (I'd get ***** for one thing, I don't use him) I'd have absolutely no trouble against those unlucky 5, not because I'd go for that insta-win infinite, but because if I landed one, I just got a stock. If the ddd and DK are of remotely close skill level, and the ddd can infinite, the DK will win. I don't care if you center your entire game around avoiding grabs (which will severly kill off your aerial move choice due to shieldgrabs, and will force you into a playstyle that is outside your ideal) you will lose. DK is best case scenario as well since Bowser, Samus, Mario and Luigi don't have a favorable matchup against ddd even without the infinite.

Also, give it a month. It's my opinion that Luigi and DK mains won't be able to win a tourney without having to deal with a ddd counterpick on which case, they'll lose or have to counterpick as well.

A complete ban on this infinite would most definitely be easy to enforce.
1.) It's 5 matchups out of how many?
2.) The CG to infinite distinction is clear. There's no mix-up.

I don't recommend a limit, say that a ban is required to keep those 5 usable in tourney play.

 

[nitnit]

Stalling is banned? What are the criteria this is enforced under? If this is true then I'm going to feel rather stupid.

Also, I'm not a troll since I didn't post here to intentionally piss you off, I was just commenting that you went from having an actual point in your original post to just being an idiot in general =(

 

[Matador]

Also, I'm not a troll since I didn't post here to intentionally piss you off, I was just commenting that you went from having an actual point in your original post to just being an idiot in general =(

You'd piss me off if you called me an idiot.

Edit @ Millar: I'm not arguing IC's infinite. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it requires a ban. My problem is with ddd's.

 

[Patsie]

Stalling is banned? What are the criteria this is enforced under? If this is true then I'm going to feel rather stupid.

Also, I'm not a troll since I didn't post here to intentionally piss you off, I was just commenting that you went from having an actual point in your original post to just being an idiot in general =(

I really don't see what you're talking about, I got pissed at Yuna and everyone's up in arms about it. I'd get over it, if you knew anything about argumentation Yuna fails on several levels. Just try arguing against him =).

And yes. Stalling is banned, place foot in mouth.

 

[Patsie]

Scrubs, why are they allowed to complain.

Your just sad that a IC owned you at a tournament, Ive seen It happen so many times

What's really sad is that you wasted a minute of your life posting that just to make yourself look bad =)

 

[Grunt]

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

Yeah SamuraiPanda said a while ago
"IC's Chaingrab will not be banned. once it starts breaking the game, and dominating tournaments, then we will decide on banning it."

This was decided a long time ago.

Everyone, get real. The only places that will ban the infinites are small local tournies. no matter how hard you debate, this thread will go nowhere.

 

[The_NZA]

"Scrubs, why are they allowed to complain.

Your just sad that a IC owned you at a tournament, Ive seen It happen so many times"

The only thing worse than a scrub is a scrub with a sore throat. Maybe you can put up an argument and grip your pair rather than sucking on Yuna's.

 

[nitnit]

I really don't see what you're talking about, I got pissed at Yuna and everyone's up in arms about it. I'd get over it, if you knew anything about argumentation Yuna fails on several levels. Just try arguing against him =).

And yes. Stalling is banned, place foot in mouth.

I actually said that I am no fan of Yuna whatsoever, and I actually laughed out loud when you bsahed him since it was deserved, but I don't really understand the point of this thread tbh. It's just a giant whine fest of "infinates suck!!!" "No u suck!" "no u!"


So, can someone please explain the criteria of stalling, and how it is enforced?


Also, can anyone explain how Metaknight is at the top of the game if he has no chaingrabs at all and these are so gamebreaking?

 

[Matador]

Yeah SamuraiPanda said a while ago
"IC's Chaingrab will not be banned. once it starts breaking the game, and dominating tournaments, then we will decide on banning it."

This was decided a long time ago.

Everyone, get real. The only places that will ban the infinites are small local tournies. no matter how hard you debate, this thread will go nowhere.

It has already been said that the purpose of this thread is not to ban infinites. The purpose is to find an answer to the title, which is a question I've been mulling over for awhile myself.

Edit @ Nit: That's this entire forum now. No decisions are made aside from in the backroom, where scrubs are banned.

 

[GofG]

Scrubs.

You realize you are arguing not only against some of the most respected smashers *coughlolyunacough* on SWF, but also against Sirlin, right?

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.

Do you really think you know more about competitive gaming than Sirlin does?

EDIT: To the poster above me: The burden of proof lies on the OP to prove that infinites SHOULD be banned.


Also, more from sirlin (sorry for the wall o text, Ankoku, remove it if you see fit)

Only in the most extreme, rare cases should something be banned because it is “too good.” This will be the most common type of ban requested by players, and almost all of their requests will be foolish. Banning a tactic simply because it is “the best” isn’t even warranted. That only reduces the game to all the “second best” tactics, which isn’t necessarily any better of a game than the original game. In fact, it’s often worse!

The only reasonable case to ban something because it is “too good” is when that tactic completely dominates the entire game, to the exclusion of other tactics. It is possible, though very rare, that removing an element of the game that is not only “the best” but also “ten times better than anything else in the game” results in a better game. I emphasize that is extremely rare. The most common case is that the player requesting the ban doesn’t fully grasp that the game is, in fact, not all about that one tactic. He should win several tournaments using mainly this tactic to prove his point. Another, far rarer possibility is that he’s right. The game really is shallow and centered on one thing (whether that one thing is a bug or by design is irrelevant). In that case, the best course of action is usually to abandon the game and play one of the hundreds of other readily available good games in the world.

Only in the ultra-rare case that the player is right and the game is worth saving and the game without the ultra-tactic is a ten times better game—only then is the notion even worth fighting for. And even in this case, it may take time for the game to mature enough for a great percentage of the best players and tournament organizers to realize that tactic should, indeed, be banned.

 

[Patsie]

Yeah SamuraiPanda said a while ago
"IC's Chaingrab will not be banned. once it starts breaking the game, and dominating tournaments, then we will decide on banning it."

This was decided a long time ago.

Everyone, get real. The only places that will ban the infinites are small local tournies. no matter how hard you debate, this thread will go nowhere.

I'll still work to change people's minds about it, though. It's still ridiculous in my mind that people actually side with it.

And I'd love to know at what point stalling 'broke the game and dominated tournaments' to the level they're describing. Looks to me like it's still banned.

What we have on our hands here, boys, is a contradiction.

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Stalling is banned? What are the criteria this is enforced under? If this is true then I'm going to feel rather stupid.

Also, I'm not a troll since I didn't post here to intentionally piss you off, I was just commenting that you went from having an actual point in your original post to just being an idiot in general =(

any technique used to stall the match is banned... eg. the sonic stall

 

[nitnit]

any technique used to stall the match is banned... eg. the sonic stall

So, if I sit in the corner and use my blaster as Falco, is this stalling? Or is camping not stalling?

 

[Patsie]

I actually said that I am no fan of Yuna whatsoever, and I actually laughed out loud when you bsahed him since it was deserved, but I don't really understand the point of this thread tbh. It's just a giant whine fest of "infinates suck!!!" "No u suck!" "no u!"


So, can someone please explain the criteria of stalling, and how it is enforced?


Also, can anyone explain how Metaknight is at the top of the game if he has no chaingrabs at all and these are so gamebreaking?

Is it? Look at the majority of my posts. Look at someone like Matador's posts. And look at Alphazealot's post or the other people who reasoned, though against me (please for the love of God don't look at Yuna's posts if you want reason).

We are being courteous and having a discussion about a strategy using intelligence. It's a good argument.

Maybe you and others need to grow up and realize that argumentation isn't always bad, and no, they don't boil down to what you're saying at all.

 

[Grunt]

It has already been said that the purpose of this thread is not to ban infinites. The purpose is to find an answer to the title, which is a question I've been mulling over for awhile myself.

Exactally.
Thay aren't banned because they aren't dominating tournies.

 

[The_NZA]

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

But what you guys fail to understand is

a. its a different game. "Dont get Grabbed" was actually possible in that game, with lcanceling, speed, extra stocks to make up lost ground and whatnot.

b. I know that htis list is untrue because as a Ness player I loved playing against Fox. Why? Because, even though Fox > Ness in Tiers, Ness had some 0-80% combos on Fox. It was just a disadvantaged fight, not a broken one. Knowing that match up makes me doubt the whole credibility of your list. And anyways, shiek didn't have an infinite against link.

 

[GofG]

I'll still work to change people's minds about it, though. It's still ridiculous in my mind that people actually side with it.

And I'd love to know at what point stalling 'broke the game and dominated tournaments' to the level they're describing. Looks to me like it's still banned.

What we have on our hands here, boys, is a contradiction.

I would advise you read Sirlin's "Playing to Win" as soon as you physically can. It is the most important thing that has ever been written about competitive gaming.

Sirlin answers your question, of course.

There are some things so extreme that they can be banned without much testing. These include glitches that crash the game or have radical effects, such as blanking out the opponent’s entire screen, removing his characters, units, or resources from the game, and so forth. Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned. Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players. Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic, even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it.

The reason why Sonic's stall is banned is because there is no way to hit him while he is stalling; he is perfectly invulnerable, and can stall with no skill required for the entirety of the match.

 

[nitnit]

Also, can anyone explain how Metaknight is at the top of the game if he has no chaingrabs at all and these are so gamebreaking?

I demand an explanation. How can metaknight possibly be any good (let alone at the top) in this game if he doesn't have a chaingrab or infinate since they are breaking the game so badly?

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

So, if I sit in the corner and use my blaster as Falco, is this stalling? Or is camping not stalling?

camping isn't stalling.

infinite grabs are stalling because nothing that the opponent can do can stop you from doing it forever.

Sonic stall is completely uninteruptable by almost any character.

 

[Patsie]

So, if I sit in the corner and use my blaster as Falco, is this stalling? Or is camping not stalling?

No, the difference is stalling allows certain characters to 'camp' or stall around areas unreachable for others, so you can't attack them.

An example is Sonic going under the stage and repeatingly homing attacking so that he never dies.

 

[bman in 2288]

EDIT: nvm.

10char

 

[nitnit]

nvm bman answered this

 

[Matador]

Scrubs.

You realize you are arguing not only against some of the most respected smashers *coughlolyunacough* on SWF, but also against Sirlin, right?



Do you really think you know more about competitive gaming than Sirlin does?

EDIT: To the poster above me: The burden of proof lies on the OP to prove that infinites SHOULD be banned.


Also, more from sirlin (sorry for the wall o text, Ankoku, remove it if you see fit)

Oh, I see now.

So we should just leave these 5 unable to contend in tournament play until an AT of some sort will find some way to break ddd's infinite if their opponent should ever counterpick him?

Recommending a ban on an attack that's inescapable until death and is nearly impossible to avoid makes me a scrub now? I see.

I'd love to see what this "God" Sirlin has to say about ddd's infinites.

And why is the burden of proof on the OP? I hope you're not imposing the rules of the Court on a situation such as this. In any case, he's proved this in the OP either way.

 

[nitnit]

camping isn't stalling.

infinite grabs are stalling because nothing that the opponent can do can stop you from doing it forever.

Sonic stall is completely uninteruptable by almost any character.

I believe that by definition "stall" means 'to come to a standstill; be brought to a stop'

Preforming an infinite is not stalling in this sense, the battle continues, just completely one-sided for an amount of time. I'll agree with the sentiment that's annoying, distasteful, but what I'm asking is how characters without infinites are able to climb high on the tiers if it's truly gamebreaking?

 

[Matador]

Exactally.
Thay aren't banned because they aren't dominating tournies.

It's not dominating tourneys because the unlucky 5 wouldn't dominate tourneys anyway. If it were Snake or MK that were vulnerable to this infinite, then it would be dominating tourneys, and it would be banned. The fact of the matter is that those 5 characters now don't even have the opportunity to do well in tourneys.

Mewtwo had bad matchups in Melee. He was a bad character. This is a different story. These are 5 characters that could contend in tourneys, but now have, not a bad matchup, but an UNWINNABLE matchup.

 

[Zankoku]

First of all, wtf GofG? I have no idea why you referenced me in your post.

And I'd love to know at what point stalling 'broke the game and dominated tournaments' to the level they're describing. Looks to me like it's still banned.

What we have on our hands here, boys, is a contradiction.

Stalling broke the game in Melee when a Fox player shot a single laser on Temple and spent the rest of the match running away in the natural circle. Stalling also decided games when, say, a Jigglypuff player was up a few % and spent the rest of the match infinitely doing rising Pounds way out of range of the other player. Infinites are forced to end at a reasonable % (300%, last I heard, since practically anything kills you at 300%), and going past that is stalling. What's the contradiction?

 

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

I believe that by definition "stall" means 'to come to a standstill; be brought to a stop'

Preforming an infinite is not stalling in this sense, the battle continues, just completely one-sided for an amount of time. I'll agree with the sentiment that's annoying, distasteful, but what I'm asking is how characters without infinites are able to climb high on the tiers if it's truly gamebreaking?

no... infiniting is stalling. because, assuming the infinite never lets up, the battle would go on until time ran out 100% of the time, and the oponent couldn't stop it

 

[bman in 2288]

DDD aside, it gets progressively harder to do the IC's chaingrab at higher percentages, because the other character will eventually die from the throw. It's can't be done forever, unless the player manages to play perfectly for the rest of the match.

 

[Patsie]

I would advise you read Sirlin's "Playing to Win" as soon as you physically can. It is the most important thing that has ever been written about competitive gaming.

Sirlin answers your question, of course.



The reason why Sonic's stall is banned is because there is no way to hit him while he is stalling; he is perfectly invulnerable, and can stall with no skill required for the entirety of the match.

I'll read it when I get around with it.

I'm wondering why you posted this:

There are some things so extreme that they can be banned without much testing. These include glitches that crash the game or have radical effects, such as blanking out the opponent’s entire screen, removing his characters, units, or resources from the game, and so forth. Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned. Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players. Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic, even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it.

though.

Let's see.

Glitches so extreme that they undeniably end or prevent gameplay are worthy of being banned.

What does an infinite do? What did I say it did at the start of the thread? It prevents and ends the gameplay of your opponent. One person is allowed to 'play' by inputting the same thing over and over again. The other is allowed to sit there with the controller in his hands until he dies. Seems like it meets that qualification.

Likewise, so are glitches that are not equally available to all players. Some glitches in a two player game can only be performed by player 2. It is reasonable to ban such a tactic, even if it’s not overly powerful, just on the basis that all players do not have equal access to it.

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

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

I demand an explanation. How can metaknight possibly be any good (let alone at the top) in this game if he doesn't have a chaingrab or infinate since they are breaking the game so badly?

Pipe down, son.

Maybe, just maybe, if you read through some of the thread you'll find that I (and others) have explicitly stated that infinites (and let's stick to infinites, champ, since I've already covered the difference before) are not currently breaking the game.

That doesn't make them fair to use. Maybe it's a justification (though a silly one, IMO) to not really consider banning them wholly at this point. But it doesn't make infinites any more fair.

I've already discussed why Ice Climbers don't dominate tournaments. The majority of them consciously decide to not use infinites even when the proper conditions are met (desynch, both climbers, etc). Take a look at the videos, there are several times where they can infinite a character and they do something else.

Why? Well, I'm pretty sure it's because people hate the idea of infinites or wouldn't want to be known to have won a tournament off just an infinite. Sure, sometimes they will infinite 0%-death when they're down a stock or two, but the majority of them don't use infinites at all, and those that do use them sparingly.

That clear things up? ICs don't use their ICG consistently at tournaments despite the opportunity, same goes with DDD but he has a limitation on who he can perform it on.

I'm going to sleep, I might come back to see how this little gem of a thread is going midday tomorrow.