Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[Matador]

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.

My problem isn't with IC's infinite. That's far more avoidable than ddd's, so I haven't as much of a problem with it. My problem is with ddd's infinite, which is too easy to do, doesn't require a nana, and doesn't lose its availability at some point (ie. nana dying).

Also, the argument of "Why aren't ddd and ICs top tier then? Because it's not that important! MK and Snake obviously > Infinites =P lol, haha!" is not a viable one. Snake and MK are not vulnerable to infinites. The argument that has been going on in this ENTIRE thread is that infinites are broken and create unwinnable matchups. I have no doubt in my mind that if Snake and MK were vulnerable to infinites that they'd be much lower and ddd would be top.

Just because this infinite only affects 5 characters is not a reason to not ban this technique. If it affected the entire cast, it'd have already been banned. Basically we're just saying "Well Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, and Samus, ur pretty much screwed." That's like banning the characters instead of the infinite.

 

[Grunt]

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.

you mean the b move under the level?

 

[Blackbelt]

I'd just like to chime in with something here.


I honestly see nothing wrong with Infinites.


And Sirlin knows alot more than anyone else here about Competitive Gaming.

 

[Patsie]

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



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?

The contradiction still stands because that never happened.

As I said in my post, I'm sure some tournaments had that issue in a few matches. But it never, ever, EVER broke the game on the level that Yuna and AZ are referencing. They want the infinite characters to consistently win tournaments (and, as I said, JPuff didn't dominate the scene in any sense, and even those he won weren't with stalls).

And don't use washed-up examples, Temple has been banned since God knows when, and most Foxes did NOT win using running-stall tactics.

You say they broke the game. I agree, in the instances they happened they broke the game. They should be banned. But they never, ever broke the game to the point where all tournaments were decided on stalling, which is exactly what AZ/Yuna/apparently SamuraiPanda want before they want to ban infinites. It's not going to happen, because people don't like doing it, just like the majority of tournaments did not have to deal with stalling issues.

But you didn't give a justification for why stalling broke the game, you just gave two examples that sounded bad (and they are bad). How is it different from me saying this:

Infinites broke the game because the Ice Climbers could potentially kill someone as soon as they grab them, without escape, from any percentage.

That sounds like it breaks the game in the same way I view your examples as breaking the game.

So, I'm still waiting for someone to show me how stalling ever affected the tournament scene like Yuna expects infinites to (ie: the majority of tournaments won by that tactic).

 

[Patsie]

I'd just like to chime in with something here.


I honestly see nothing wrong with Infinites.


And Sirlin knows alot more than anyone else here about Competitive Gaming.

Thanks so much for stopping by, cap'n. It's great that you don't see anything wrong with infinites, but what's even better is that you think it matters without giving any reasons why.

And great, Sirlin knows a ton more than me, as I'll find out tomorrow when I read what he has to say. But, from what's been quoted so far, he certainly hasn't refuted the majority of the points I've made so far. So what I need is for more people who actually argue against me (thank you for the ones that do) instead of people saying "LOL SIRLIN IS SMARTER UR WRONG" without telling me the *gasp* reasons. That's what it seems the trolls are completely devoid of. Proper reasoning.

 

[Matador]

I'd just like to chime in with something here.


I honestly see nothing wrong with Infinites.


And Sirlin knows alot more than anyone else here about Competitive Gaming.

"I honestly see nothing wrong with infinites" says the kirby main. Of course, your character hasn't just been deemed worthless for tourney play.

And someone please address my point on those 5 that are vulnerable to infinites can't be used in tournament play. Basically, this is trading ddd's infinite for 5 characters on the roster.

 

[Zankoku]

From what I can remember, a good deal of stages (Peach's Castle, Great Bay, Yoshi's Story 64, Fourside) were banned largely due to stalling. Eventually they just banned stall tactics.

Also, those five don't become unviable for tournament play, they simply become characters you don't want to use against a Dedede. >_>

 

[GofG]

I suppose the difference would come down to the margin of error that stalling has versus the margin of error that infinites have.

I personally think the D3 infinite should be banned completely and wholly, as should Marth's regrab on ness and lucas, but you continuously bring up the IC alt grab. I cannot stress this enough:

Infiniting with the Ice Climber alt grab is like infiniting with Marth.

In Melee, if you played Marth and you, perfectly, to 100% accuracy, read your opponent's DI and teching every time, with no error whatsoever ever, then you had an infinite, or at least a guarenteed 0-death combo on any character. The Ice Climbers alt grabbing is the same way; you can call if an infinite if you want simply because it has the possibility of at some point being an infinite, but it is extremely difficult to perform compared to stuff like the wobble and D3's chain grab.

 

[Grunt]

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.

Icies infinite works on anyone.

The fact of the matter is that those 5 characters now don't even have the opportunity to do well in tourneys.

Yes they do. DK is top of B rank as far as tourney wins go. that's VERY good for someone who has "No opportunity in tournies."

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.

They still can. infinite Grab =/= Auto loss. 1 bad matchup =/= ruined character.
there's a reason they invented counterpicking.
"Oh no! im up against a Dedede! well i'm f*cked this round. good thing it's 2/3, so i can pick Snake next round!"

 

[Blackbelt]

Thanks so much for stopping by, cap'n. It's great that you don't see anything wrong with infinites, but what's even better is that you think it matters without giving any reasons why.

And great, Sirlin knows a ton more than me, as I'll find out tomorrow when I read what he has to say. But, from what's been quoted so far, he certainly hasn't refuted the majority of the points I've made so far. So what I need is for more people who actually argue against me (thank you for the ones that do) instead of people saying "LOL SIRLIN IS SMARTER UR WRONG" without telling me the *gasp* reasons. That's what it seems the trolls are completely devoid of. Proper reasoning.

Takes one to know one.


Anyone, all joking aside, I honestly see nothing wrong with the infinites you seem to constantly gripe about (DDD and IC) for the following reasons:

1. DDDs only works on 5 characters. Now, if standard tournament matches were only one game, than we'd have a problem. But they're not. Tournament matches are three games for the sole purpose of avoiding Character specific infinites from completely destroying everything.

2. While the ICs infinite works against everyone, there are problems with it, those being that, in order to start the infinite, certain requirements ,already mentioned earlier, must be met. Combine this with the fact that ICs crab range and traction stink, and the infinite isn't that big of a problem.

3. Sirlin will eventually reach all of your points.

 

[Tien2500]

Stalling didn't effect the tournament scene that much because it was banned I think fairly early on. Hyrule temple was banned because Fox could hit you once there and run away and it would be impossible to catch him. Jigglypuff could hit you once and then run away the rest of the fight with rising pound. When time ran out Jiggly/Fox won for having less damage. If this was allowed only Jiggly would have been viable for tournament play. (or Fox on Hyrule). It was banned pretty early on I think but if it wasn't it would have ruined Melee.

 

[Blackbelt]

"I honestly see nothing wrong with infinites" says the kirby main. Of course, your character hasn't just been deemed worthless for tourney play.

And someone please address my point on those 5 that are vulnerable to infinites can't be used in tournament play. Basically, this is trading ddd's infinite for 5 characters on the roster.

I also main Lucas, who has to deal with Marth, ok?

 

[Patsie]

I suppose the difference would come down to the margin of error that stalling has versus the margin of error that infinites have.

I personally think the D3 infinite should be banned completely and wholly, as should Marth's regrab on ness and lucas, but you continuously bring up the IC alt grab. I cannot stress this enough:

Infiniting with the Ice Climber alt grab is like infiniting with Marth.

In Melee, if you played Marth and you, perfectly, to 100% accuracy, read your opponent's DI and teching every time, with no error whatsoever ever, then you had an infinite, or at least a guarenteed 0-death combo on any character. The Ice Climbers alt grabbing is the same way; you can call if an infinite if you want simply because it has the possibility of at some point being an infinite, but it is extremely difficult to perform compared to stuff like the wobble and D3's chain grab.

Actually, all the supporters of infinites have been going against that claim the whole time.

Yuna said something his fanboy's went crazy over earlier about how skill/ease of the move has absolutely nothing to do with it, I would take a look at that.

It's not about how easy it is in the end. Can it be repeated indefinitely without the opponent being able to influence the game at all? Then it is an infinite.

Your example is wrong, because the player still influences the game in deciding where/how to tech/DI. It's not so for infinites. Basically, you described a 2 player game where one player (the Marth) was just dominating. An infinite is a one-player game because the opponent's inputs DON'T MATTER until the infinite finishes.

 

[The_NZA]

Counterpicking wasn't made so that you could have a nigh impossible game and make up for it by counterpicking. Counterpicking was made because every character has good matchups and bad matchups and you should be able to balance that out, as well as the game was made with a desire to a see a diverse cast expressed. An impossible matchup isn't the same as a bad matchup. 1 grab=1 stock might as well be considered an impossible matchup. And as far as the IC infinite goes... I think I buy into the argument that it is difficult, although it should be focused on heavlily during tourneys to see what kind of real effect they have.

Personally though, yes, The Marth/PTrainer thing on Ness and Lucas, as well as the DDD thing should be banned...through and through.

 

[Tien2500]

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 NOEZ I DISAGREE WITH SIRLIN! I MUST ATONE FOR MY SINS!

Seriously think for yourself you stupid sheep. Think for yourself. Go on it won't hurt. Sirlin has his view of competitive gaming and we all do not have to agree with it. This is not a matter of right and wrong anyway. It is a matter of me having a different philosophy on competitve gaming than Sirlin.

 

[Matador]

Icies infinite works on anyone.



Yes they do. DK is top of B rank as far as tourney wins go. that's VERY good for someone who has "No opportunity in tournies."



They still can. infinite Grab =/= Auto loss. 1 bad matchup =/= ruined character.
there's a reason they invented counterpicking.
"Oh no! im up against a Dedede! well i'm f*cked this round. good thing it's 2/3, so i can pick Snake next round!"

I haven't been refuting ICs infinite. I have said various times that this particular infinite is far harder to pull off and much easier to avoid than ddd's.

This is a good point, and baffles me, especially since ddd >>> DK in that matchup. Apparently this matchup is either wrong, he's never counterpicked, or he's gotten lucky.

As for your ddd scenario, not only have I just given up a round, but my mario still doesn't get anywhere in tourney results. If I happen to win this round and the next, Snake did it, not Mario, which is my point.

 

[Patsie]

Stalling didn't effect the tournament scene that much because it was banned I think fairly early on. Hyrule temple was banned because Fox could hit you once there and run away and it would be impossible to catch him. Jigglypuff could hit you once and then run away the rest of the fight with rising pound. When time ran out Jiggly/Fox won for having less damage. If this was allowed only Jiggly would have been viable for tournament play. (or Fox on Hyrule). It was banned pretty early on I think but if it wasn't it would have ruined Melee.

Right, so you're basically feeding my argument.


Stalling didn't effect the tournament scene that much because it was banned I think fairly early on.

=

We decided you don't need to look at tournament results to ban something.

AMIRITE?

That's what Yuna and co have been arguing. I'm saying that's not the case, and it never was with stalling. It doesn't need to be that way for infinites either.

Haha, I'm glad I remembered stalling existed as a ban, it's really exposing a ton of loopholes and contradictions.

Anyone, all joking aside, I honestly see nothing wrong with the infinites you seem to constantly gripe about (DDD and IC) for the following reasons:

1. DDDs only works on 5 characters. Now, if standard tournament matches were only one game, than we'd have a problem. But they're not. Tournament matches are three games for the sole purpose of avoiding Character specific infinites from completely destroying everything.

2. While the ICs infinite works against everyone, there are problems with it, those being that, in order to start the infinite, certain requirements ,already mentioned earlier, must be met. Combine this with the fact that ICs crab range and traction stink, and the infinite isn't that big of a problem.

3. Sirlin will eventually reach all of your points.

Alright, none of your posts actually say why you think infinites aren't bad. You said that a) they're limited and b) they have requirements. You need to tell me why the actual act is good or permissible.

1) No, don't give me that, character switching WAS NOT solely implemented to prevent character-specific infinites. Basically, you're admitting it's bad but saying it doesn't happen a lot so you don't care. That's fine, you don't have to care, but it doesn't magically make it a positive/fair strategy.

2) I've responded to this millions of times in this thread. It doesn't matter if there are requirements to set it up. You're just saying infinites are hard to come by. You're not saying why they're good. This point doesn't attack any of the reasons I gave for why infinites are bad.

3) Great. When someone posts me something relevant to the argument from him that I can't beat, I'll concede. I already have done so on other points in this thread, I'm not like Yuna. I don't want to win the argument, I want to know what's true, and so far I don't think people have answered my arguments fully enough to prove me untrue.

 

[acv]

infinites do not make the more skilled player automatically lose.

 

[Matador]

I also main Lucas, who has to deal with Marth, ok?

So you see Marth being your ultimate counter due to a clearly broken technique is fine? Explain plz

Edit @ acv: Really? so infinites are fair right? They better player always wins right? We live in a little place called reality, where a King penguin can repeatedly **** an Italian plumber and his little brother and KO them whenever he feels like it. One grab should not mean you've lost a stock when the circumstances are like ddd's to those unlucky 5.

 

[Patsie]

Icies infinite works on anyone.



Yes they do. DK is top of B rank as far as tourney wins go. that's VERY good for someone who has "No opportunity in tournies."



They still can. infinite Grab =/= Auto loss. 1 bad matchup =/= ruined character.
there's a reason they invented counterpicking.
"Oh no! im up against a Dedede! well i'm f*cked this round. good thing it's 2/3, so i can pick Snake next round!"

Right, as we've iterated hundreds of times, we know that empirically, a situation that allows for an infinite doesn't always end up in an infinite.

We're not saying people are being ruined by infinites.
We're not saying that certain characters have no chance at winning because infinites exist.

We are saying that the actual performance of an infinite is bad and unfair.

 

[PK Hexagon]

No one said you shouldn't use those 7 characters. They'll work great as secondaries or when you're having fun in friendlies or whatnot. Just don't bring them into a high competition setting and expect TOs to pacify you when you know what could/will happen.

No one is telling you to use or main those 7 characters.

 

[Grunt]

Counterpicking wasn't made so that you could have a nigh impossible game and make up for it by counterpicking.

If your opponent happens to be able to do that, then yes. Having an infinite against someone is not tied into the way counterpicking works. Collateral only goes as far as bad matchups.

Counterpicking was made because every character has good matchups and bad matchups and you should be able to balance that out

Mario luigi Samus and DK have bad matchups against DDD, so the game is utterly Br0ken, right? NO. this is exactally why you have counterpicking, to have a better chance at winning.

, as well as the game was made with a desire to a see a diverse cast expressed.

diversity =/= Balance, or more tournament viable characters. espescially not with brawl's physics.

An impossible matchup isn't the same as a bad matchup. 1 grab=1 stock might as well be considered an impossible matchup.

You said it was "Nigh" impossible earlier.
Make up your mind, is it hard, or impossible?
No, i'll answer for you, It's possible. HARD, but possible. and hey, if you still get 0-death'd 3 times in a row, then you can always,
CounterPick

EDIT:
Patsie, i'm not even talking to you.

the guy who said the word baffled (sorry i 4got your name):
The DK players are not getting lucky, it's just that SO MANY PEOPLE play MK and Snake, which are countered very well by DK, so him (and most others of those select 5) dont have to worry about DDD unless they counterpick him, but still, DK's tilts out range DDD's grab, and everyone else he infinites has good projectiles or spacing, so keeping him away isn't anywhere near impossible.

 

[Blackbelt]

So you see Marth being your ultimate counter due to a clearly broken technique is fine? Explain plz

Because I believe in never holding back in a competition

 

[bman in 2288]

I think I have an answer in Melee terms: Marth vs Space animals. Space animals could hold their own against Marth until they got grabbed. But when they got grabbed, it could pretty much turn into a 0-death combo. The Fox/Falco stood no chance unless the Marth messed up.

It's the same thing here. These aren't unwinnable matches, they're ridiculously dangerous. The Mario/Samus/DK/whomever has to play so much harder to avoid this potential infinite-to-death chaingrab. That can basically be summed up as being a really bad matchup, nothing more.

 

[Matador]

We're not saying people are being ruined by infinites.
We're not saying that certain characters have no chance at winning because infinites exist.

Hell, I am. How are you supposed to win a match when someone with a grab range like ddd's can mean insta-death? In a tourney, if I main any of the 5, I will run into counterpick after counterpick of ddds trying to score an easy win, which they will, much more often than not, recieve, seeing as all of the 5 had a bad matchup with ddd WITHOUT the infinite? Those 5 cannot be used in tourney play, that's not even a question.

Edit @ Bman: Your knowledge of melee is apparently limited. Marth did NOT have an infinite against either of the spacies, because DI and actual skill played a part in whether or not Marth's grabs and utils connected. The infinites in question are nothing like what you're suggesting.

 

[Matador]

No one said you shouldn't use those 7 characters. They'll work great as secondaries or when you're having fun in friendlies or whatnot. Just don't bring them into a high competition setting and expect TOs to pacify you when you know what could/will happen.

No one is telling you to use or main those 7 characters.

Okay, this is what I'm getting from what you just said. Those 7 characters should not be mained in tournament play, only as secondaries and for friendlies.

A whole fifth of the cast, full of untapped potential, booted from tournament play bad luck and game exploits.

And they could all be allowed if we were just to ban these infinites. But instead of banning these infinites, we stick these characters with very close to impossible matchups, making them horrible choices for tournament play. In the end, Marth and ddd won't be using these infinites either way because they won't even come up against those 7.

Infinites > 1/5 of the cast? explain.

 

[PassWurD]

Yuna won this thread with first post.

 

[Tien2500]

Does having infinite grabs (not including ICs for now) kept in the game in any way improve or deepen the metagame?

 

[Grunt]

Does having infinite grabs (not including ICs for now) kept in the game in any way improve or deepen the metagame?

only for the 1 (5 in this case) matchups.

 

[Tien2500]

only for the 1 (5 in this case) matchups.

Wait... so are you saying that for instance Ptrainer's infinite on Ness deepens the metagame for that matchup?

 

[Matador]

the guy who said the word baffled (sorry i 4got your name):
The DK players are not getting lucky, it's just that SO MANY PEOPLE play MK and Snake, which are countered very well by DK, so him (and most others of those select 5) dont have to worry about DDD unless they counterpick him, but still, DK's tilts out range DDD's grab, and everyone else he infinites has good projectiles or spacing, so keeping him away isn't anywhere near impossible.

So, by what you're saying, DK pretty much counters ddd as well if you don't factor the infinite into the matchup, correct? That would explain why his infinite is not as big of a hinderance as it is for the remaining 4. But the matchups are still worse than the terrible Shiek vs Bowser of melee simply because of this technique. Trying to center your playstyle around avoiding grabs severely limits you either way you look at it. Approaches must be very careful, and you have to be cautious of shieldgrabs at all times, because one screw up = stock. Wouldn't banning this particular infinite against these 5 be a better solution?

 

[Grunt]

Wait... so are you saying that for instance Ptrainer's infinite on Ness deepens the metagame for that matchup?

Since Ness's now have to work around not getting grabbed, yes, but only ever so slightly.

Trying to center your playstyle around avoiding grabs severely limits you either way you look at it. Approaches must be very careful, and you have to be cautious of shieldgrabs at all times, because one screw up = stock.

Yes, but you had to do this with Wobbling as well. Not to mention, The DDD is human, he could screw up his infinite, or his punishment all together.

Wouldn't banning this particular infinite against these 5 be a better solution?

No.
I've already stated why it will not be banned. Even the SBR said why.
Once DDD dominates tournies and unless you are DDD or Xcounter to DDD, you lose.
THEN it will be banned.
tough luck for those 5 though, but really, it's nowhere near impossible to win.

 

[PK Hexagon]

Infinites > 1/5 of the cast? explain.

2006-2008 Tier List

Top Tier:
Fox
Falco

High Tier:
Sheik
Marth
Peach

Middle Tier:
Captain Falcon
Ice Climbers
Samus
Doctor Mario
Jigglypuff
Mario
Ganondorf

Low Tier:
Link
Luigi
Donkey Kong
Roy
Young Link
Pikachu

Bottom Tier:
Yoshi
Zelda
Mr. Game and Watch
Ness
Bowser
Kirby
Pichu
Mewtwo

One fifth of the cast > One third of the cast

 

[Matador]

2006-2008 Tier List

Top Tier:
Fox
Falco

High Tier:
Sheik
Marth
Peach

Middle Tier:
Captain Falcon
Ice Climbers
Samus
Doctor Mario
Jigglypuff
Mario
Ganondorf

Low Tier:
Link
Luigi
Donkey Kong
Roy
Young Link
Pikachu

Bottom Tier:
Yoshi
Zelda
Mr. Game and Watch
Ness
Bowser
Kirby
Pichu
Mewtwo

One fifth of the cast > One third of the cast

What point are you trying to make by linking melee's tier list and saying
"One fifth of the cast > One third of the cast"

Edit: I missed that you put bottom tier in bold. The fact is that these characters were bottom tier because they had bad matchups with pretty much the rest of the cast. Those 7 don't. In fact, they're all mid tier if not close to it. Those 7, however, have one matchup that's near impossible to win, which keeps them from tournament play, and the reason it's near impossible to win is an infinite. A clearly broken technique that could just be banned instead.

So, again. Infinite > 1/5 of the cast?

 

[Tien2500]

Since Ness's now have to work around not getting grabbed, yes, but only ever so slightly.

Well I would think that Ness should be trying not to get grabbed regardless of who he is facing. In this case Ness' moveset and options would be severely limited which also limits what Charizard has to be ready for. Also Charizard now has one strategy which is clearly better than any other. Grab. Press Z. Repeat until about 200%. Dthrow. So Charizard's options are limited to one. (assuming he is "playing to win") And Ness' options are at least cut in half. I would say this is a shallower metagame.

 

[Cerozero]

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!

Did you actually even bother to read the reasons for my argument? You somehow managed to criticize things that weren't even arguments. Oh, and thanks for generalizing what I said as a misguided opinion. Look, if you're really too stupid to actually counter what I'm saying, then just don't post. Lord know's we don't need more of your posts.

I'll humor you in telling you why you're wrong this time, but, in the future, here's what an argument consists of, since apparently they don't teach logic (or, actually, anything that constitutes intelligence) in Stockholm:

CLAIM: What you're saying
WARRANT: Why what you're saying is true
IMPACT: Why it matters

Notice that my argument has these things.

Here is the structure of your argument(s):
CLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIMCLAIM

Anyway, here's why you're a ****ing moron. I'm only going to answer the ones that are actually responding to something that matters, because you decided to PMS about random **** that wasn't even part of my argument, for instance, my very first sentence.

"Only, we banned all stages with a permanent wall partially because of this!"
This still is just a band-aid patch that only allows people to ignore the problem while the real problem goes unattended. Why the hell would you ban stages when you can ban the infinite? There are infinites that exist without a wall. There are stages with walls that aren't permanent that still allow 0-death combos. BANNING STAGES WITH WALLS DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT AVOIDS IT. Maybe it's a step in the right direction, but banning a perfectly good stage because it allows for infinites is illogical. Stop the infinites, open up more stages.

"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?"
It is consequential, because if you read what I said, the reason some infinites were allowed is because they were impossible to pull off without screwing up every once and a while (even then, they shouldn't be allowed). I wasn't saying allow hard infinites. I was giving a reason for why they were allowed. THEN I said the ease of Brawl's infinites exacerbates the issue. You're feeding into my argument.


"Just don't get grabbed. No computer is ever in control of the opponent, even if he's getting infinited. Yes, he cannot escape if you do it properly, but boo hoo him.

You know what, a lot of things are really broken and unfair and guaranteed or pretty much guaranteed if done right. Well boohoo. Where does it end? Do we ban Falco's chaingrab that takes certain characters from 0-40%? Heck, that's 40 friggin' percent! Do we ban certain attacks because they kill certain other characters way too early?"
I'm sorry, was this an argument against me? Because I certainly don't see it. I don't know who your friends are, Yuna, but the last time I checked "Well, boohoo" isn't a proper answer to a reasoned argument. Also, read what I said below about don't get grabbed. You're an idiot. I've responded to your arguments already in my OP, so I'm not going to do it here.

"The game is badly designed. Some characters have unfair advantages. Some characters has suckfest matchups. Deal with it." and "It's the DK's choice to go DK against a character he knows he's at a huge disadvantage against, just as it's Ike's choice to go up against Pit on Final Destination. We do not ban things because they create unfair matchups. We ban them if they break the game ("Everyone plays as DDD or lose!")."
No, no. There's a difference between impossibility and disadvantage. The second DK gets grabbed, he loses his stock. That's not a disadvantage. That's an impossibility. If DK had a really tough time against DDD without the infinite, HE AT LEAST GETS TO INFLUENCE WHETHER HE WINS OR LOSES. Infinites don't allow him to do that, and you have not once responded to my argument saying that.

"We're not here to have fun. We're here to win. Competitive gaming is about winning, be it with or without honor. If you do not wish to use "unfair" tactics, be my guest. But don't whine about it when someone beats you using said unfair tactics."
No, read what I ****ing said before you post your mundane garbage. COMPETITIVE = YOU PLAYING AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE. COMPETITIVE =/= YOU FACING A COMPUTER. INFINITES =/= YOU PLAYING AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE. INFINITES = YOU FACING A COMPUTER. I have never had someone use an infinite against me (I've been CGd, but whatever), so I'm not whining. I'm just saying there's no justification for allowing them, and your stupidity is reifing that. You need to have two people influencing each other's gameplay as a prerequisite to any sort of multiplayer game, and infinites break that.


"No one with half a brain is saying this."
Really? Because within 5 minutes of me posting, someone made that argument. And please stop patronizing people, Yuna, you're not intelligent at all. I don't care that you can capitalize properly and write decent sentences, you're a troll. And a dumb one at that.

""Competitivity"? DDD has no infinite. It's always a chaingrab. It's just that on some characters, he doesn't need to move forward much if at all to regrab. We'd be limiting how much he's allowed to chaingrab 5 characters, punishing him because his chaingrab is just too darn good against those 5."
DDD has no infinite = . Do you even know the definition of an infinite? A chaingrab can be an infinite, not vice versa, *******.

"No one's saying this either. Where the hell are you getting these crappy arguments from?"
I guess you've never gone to the IC forums after someone came back from a tournament banning grab infinites...

"No they don't. Competitive gaming is about winning at all costs. Infiniting someone (not that many such true infinites exist, most are chaingrabs or chain grab-releases). "
Listen, you're an idiot. Infinites = you can continually lock someone down and damage them regardless of situation (unless, of course, someone applies a condition, IE: wall infinite). THE FACT THAT A GRAB IS PART OF AN INFINITE DOESN'T MEAN ITS NOT AN INFINITE. They're inescapable and infinitely repeatable, that's all that matters.

The following quotes:
You mean like in one of the 29 other threads on this topic? Well, yeah.
Misguided opinion.
It's one of the reasons.
Or not.

are basically you getting pissy at me for no reason. Seriously, grow up and argue on legitimate terms. You attacked me without even reading the whole thing. I write down 5 reasons, and you criticize my first by saying "It's only ONE of the reasons..." Are you brain-dead? I'm not going to flatter you with another response unless you want to engage me at a level above a 6th-grade-playground-argument.

Give it a rest.

 

[Grunt]

Well I would think that Ness should be trying not to get grabbed regardless of who he is facing. In this case Ness' moveset and options would be severely limited which also limits what Charizard has to be ready for. Also Charizard now has one strategy which is clearly better than any other. Grab. Press Z. Repeat until about 200%. Dthrow. So Charizard's options are limited to one. (assuming he is "playing to win") And Ness' options are at least cut in half. I would say this is a shallower metagame.

Ness then has to learn to play to not get grabbed (which changes his playstyle). PT now has to change his style to counter the spammy Ness, and so on and so on, thus advancing both their metagames. this is why the melee tiers went from Spacies->Marth->Shiek->Spacies as God Tiers. they were all learning to counter eachother, which caused multiple strategies to be able to be used, and created a more diverse metagame.

Once Ness cannot do anything to stop a PT from grabbing him, then you hit a deadend in this matchup.

 

[Dream Chaser]

Infinites reduce the game to performing closed skills with pretty graphics in the background. The player is nothing more than a sandbag. This breaks down the art of fighting, fighting is no longer required to win. Its about the first person to land an infinite, be it a grab or using a wall.

 

[Grunt]

Infinites reduce the game to performing closed skills with pretty graphics in the background. The player is nothing more than a sandbag. This breaks down the art of fighting, fighting is no longer required to win. Its about the first person to land an infinite, be it a grab or using a wall.

Go watch a MVC2 Cable Battle.
Pistol->Viper Beam FTW.

 

[Tien2500]

Well the metagame has changed but changed does not mean it is deeper. There is now a new metagame for this matchups which is either more or less diverse.

First off I don't think Ness can spam prokectiles if thats what you mean. Charizard is fast so if he tries PK thunder or PK flash he's going to get grabbed. His only option is PK fire and this isn't going to protect him.

Ness just loses a ton of options here. The only viable approach that I can really think of is his fair but then again I'm not a Ness main so correct me if I'm wrong. Ness has very few options in this fight and Charizard has one that is clearly the best. And I would think less options means a shallower Metagame.