Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

[DD151]

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.

none of us have been around for so long that we can actually corroborate whether stalling had a major impact on early melee tournaments; however, people did win by gaining a % advantage and using stall tactics, be it running away on temple or wallbombing or rising pound, and it was thus banned.

on another note, your constant ad hominem towards the supporters of infinites is completely unjustified, whether or not it was provoked by yuna in the first place. why am i singling you out, you might ask? it's not because i'm your "yuna fanboy," but because of all the posters in this thread it is most salient that you are the one making the most inflammatory personal remarks.

this argument won't get anywhere because both sides are adamantly refusing to yield, citing that "points haven't been refuted," and contentions are just being repeated on every page with no progress. you're not going to "win" with the attitude that after typing out your carefully crafted refutation, your opponents will walk away with a dark cloud hanging over their heads, too awestruck to return. it's really necessary that we debate the subject one facet at a time, otherwise points will be continuously reintroduced and forgotten and nothing is ever settled. we also shouldn't focus on x vs. y matchups that feature an incredible amount of theorysmash with no way to possibly support claims outside of numerous actual matchups.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Everybody is overrating this all so much. The only broken infinites in the game are certain matchups, and even then, there are still characters you can use your character against. Don't forget about Snake, MK, G&W, etc that don't break your character with a single grab, so your character can still get use in other matchups. DK is actually good against Snake, and someone pointed out an instance where DK was able to keep DDD at bay. I think DK's matchup against Snake more than makes up for the "OMG BROKEN".

 

[PK Hexagon]

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.

Actually, no it won't, because those 7 characters who can be infinite grabbed won't be used in high level tournament play. That is to say, people who want to win won't use them. Not really a big deal.

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

You seem to think we want infinites. Not many do. There's simply:

1. Not enough evidence that it breaks the game.

2. It only applies to 7 or so characters.

3. Enforcing the ban would be difficult and resource consuming.

The ends simply don't justify the means, in this case.

 

[Tien2500]

Actually, no it won't, because those 7 characters who can be infinite grabbed won't be used in high level tournament play. That is to say, people who want to win won't use them. Not really a big deal.



You seem to think we want infinites. Not many do. There's simply:

1. Not enough evidence that it breaks the game.

2. It only applies to 7 or so characters.

3. Enforcing the ban would be difficult and resource consuming.

The ends simply don't justify the means, in this case.

1. I'll concede Chaingrabbing doesn't break the game. It bends it a little bit. I don't think or at least hope noone is arguing that it does.

2. I think seven characters is a significant number.

3. I don't think enforcing the ban would be that resource consuming. As someone pointed out early is relatively easy to tell when someone is performing an infinite or attempting it. I understand people can't watch every match but if someone tries to do this in a tournament setting (if it were banned) then I'm sure they'd be caught.

Now if "we" by which I assume you mean most smash players don't want chaingrabs in the game, and agree that the game is better without them (this is a hypothetical. I'm not saying this is true since it is a rather large generalization) why shouldn't it be banned?

 

[Koga]

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.

 

[D3w3y]

I agree infinites should not be allowed but it's just not practical.

Some charaters have inescapable combos which would not be banned while a character like DDD also has an inescapable combo. The only difference is DDD's can go on forever.

So now you have to decided on an IMPOSSIBLE rule.

How do you decide this? Say Popo grabs a player, throws him/her and Nana grabs him/her. Is this considered an infinite or does Nana have to throw one more time to Popo for it to be considered illegal? But whouldn't this be just like a combo if it ends there, say Nana fsmashes the opponent at the end. So does that mean DDD can throw the same player 3 times only? What about a 0-certian % combo that deals with multiple throws, how do you deal with that? Juat for a little curveball let's say DDD is in a throw combo and accidently grabs the person a 4th time, if he just holds on and lets him go is that legal? Or will there be some lax on the rule possibly allowing DDD to just throw him from the 4th throw and continue on with the match?

Its just nearly impossible to judge all this.

**The number of throws allowed was just an example, please don't post about that**

 

[Tien2500]

Well in pretty much every sport or game there is some gray area within the rules. This is particularly the case with baseball or football (american). You cannot perfectly 100% enforce all the rules. So we have referees and we trust in their judgment. We all know what such a rule would mean or would be aiming at. So if someone tries to be a ******* and dance around the rule it will be fairly obvious and you can punish them. Wobbling has been banned, I believe effectively, in tournaments in some regions so it can be done.

 

[Eji1700]

So you wouldn't want to ban it if it were Snake who had these chaingrabs because, hey, he's good enough already? Nice logic.

And no, if an infinite was found against Snake tomorrow, no one would seriously consider banning him. For one thing, IC's infinites work on him AFAIK.

Competitive Gaming is not about every single character having an equal chance or even having a chance at all. It's about eliminating seriously broken stuff that elimiantes everyone but a small select few. If DeDeDe could do what he does against DK against the majority of the cast, then, yeah, we'd ban it. But that's not how it is.

1. I must have conveyed my point badly. if snake did have such an infinite they would almost certianly ban it.

2. And yes if the infiinite was found against snake tomorrow it would be considered. I"M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT ICE CLIMBERS. You can kill nana, it moves you , and as we know ice climbers are not exactly powerful characters anyways. DDD is. He's not the top, but he's close, even without the chaingrab. The infinite, for all intents and purposes, doesn't really even help DDD because the matchups it autowins DDD has an amazing advantage in anyways.

3. How can eliminating DDD's chainthrow to only 5 reps on DK and bowser HARM competition? You agree that if it was against the entire cast it'd be banned or limited, why not limit it to those it effects. Of course its about winning and of course its not about giving everyone an equal chance, but i can't even think of a similar legal matchup in ANY other fighter thats as bad as DK vs DDD. Theres some pretty similar situations in Tekken, SC, and even some versions of GG but im having a hard time thinking of a matchup where if you are at any point hit with a fast, good range, unblockable, high priority move, you lose.

I mean everyone always likes to talk about how competitve gaming is about winning. Competitive gaming is about whatever the community says its about. Every single fighter has a main tourney, clan, group, or community that sets the rules and they fluctuate across the boards depeding on the style of game, the quality, and the problems faced. What exactly would happen if DDD could only throw a DK 5 times before having to do an up, forward, or back throw? He wouldn't plummet through the tiers, and he'd still have an astoundingly strong game against those characters. Don't get grabbed would still be the main point of your game because it's going to be about 40% and then he can run up and do it again if you don't dodge it. The ONLY difference is that a DDD would have to actually grab you again or use a finisher other than his back throw. The only people who would complain are those that would lose with DDD vs bowser and DK and quite honestly if you're losing those matchups i don't think you qualify for competitive anyways, and should those people be winning in the first place.

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Despite everyone's wish for the game to be more balanced by banning infinites, it's just not going to happen. Many people in this thread don't actually have a say in it, despite having strong opinions.

So we need to establish something: It's not getting banned.

Alright? So now that it's going to be banned, what do we do now? We need to avoid the grab as much as possible. "But Monshou! It's impossible not to get grabbed!" I don't care. Try to avoid the grab anyway. You need to do as much as possible to gain the advantage over your opponent and get ahead in stock.

Yuna already explained that there are certain conditions for Ice Climbers to infinite, and that's for Nana to be beside Popo. If you can keep them separate, they can't infinite. DDD can only infinite certain characters, but even in those matchups I am sure said characters can avoid the grab to extents. Same thing for Pokemon Trainer and Marth.

 

[Inferno_blaze]

So we need to establish something: It's not getting banned.

So you think people can't change anything? What happened to all the people who laughed at the idea of women voters?

I mean everyone always likes to talk about how competitve gaming is about winning. Competitive gaming is about whatever the community says its about. Every single fighter has a main tourney, clan, group, or community that sets the rules and they fluctuate across the boards depeding on the style of game, the quality, and the problems faced. What exactly would happen if DDD could only throw a DK 5 times before having to do an up, forward, or back throw? He wouldn't plummet through the tiers, and he'd still have an astoundingly strong game against those characters. Don't get grabbed would still be the main point of your game because it's going to be about 40% and then he can run up and do it again if you don't dodge it. The ONLY difference is that a DDD would have to actually grab you again or use a finisher other than his back throw. The only people who would complain are those that would lose with DDD vs bowser and DK and quite honestly if you're losing those matchups i don't think you qualify for competitive anyways, and should those people be winning in the first place.

This I agree with.

 

[Yuna]

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.

So because it's hard and "not fun", we should ban it? It's kinda broken... it's just not broken enough. It limits the viability of 5 characters, it doesn't force us to play as D3.

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.

So what? How do you know Yoshi, Ganondorf and Captain Falcon aren't being eliminated early from tourneys because they just flat-out suck? I say we should ban everyone but those three because it clearly takes more skill to play as the worst characters in the game who are easily gimped!

I mean, I wanna stand a chance at winning as Yoshi! I wanna have a chance of winning with every character in the game! I say that I should be able to ban every single character who's a bad matchup against my characters!

Some characters have horrendous matchups because of chaingrabs and whatnot. Deal with it. D3's chaingrab on Bowser is not a real infinite, BTW. For one thing, this allows him to trip. For another, this means he can eventually run out of stage and that it doesn't work anywhere on the stage. For yet another thing, I think that everyone but DK can eventually DI out at 200% or so. Of course, you'll probably be dead by then, but that means that D3 can't continue chaingrabbing you past that, hence, obviously not an infinite. So count that out. That makes this 4 characters you can complain about.

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.

"Anything that affects tourney results should be banned"? "Anything that creates a 10-0 matchup should be banned"?

Seriously, most fighting games have matchups that are by all intents and purposes unwinnable because of a inherent flaw in a certain character (the flaw here is that these five do not slide far enough to be able to DI out of D3's infinite chaingrab). We do not ban things because they're "unfair" or because they gimp a select few characters. We ban them if they break the game itself, if the game becomes unwinnable unlesss you use the same strategy (chaingrab as D3) or as a select few characters on which the strategy doesn't work.

D3's killer chaingrab works on 5 characters. This is not enough to ban it.

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.

It's not severeely affecting tournament play, neither through theorycraft nor actual tournament results. The ICs are very vulnerably. Kill Nana or just separate them. How many times must I say this? Their recovery is one of the worst in the game, especially Nana's since she's so stupid.

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.

Stalling =/= Infinites

I was not around when stalling was first banned. I can only assume they saw it a few times, deemed "too good" and immediately banned it. The community was young and had not yet experienced stalling winning matches and thus didn't ban it on principle, but people abused stages and characters and it was, thus, banned.

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?

The opinions of random people <<<< The opinions of SBR and people who know how Competitive gaming works.

Stuff.

Horrible, horrible. Those 5 have bad matchups against D3. Ban now! Again, it's not broken enough to ban. We do not ban things to ensure the Competitive viability of every character. We ban things when they force you to play as the character to win.

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.

1) 5 matchups out of 705 (match done by someone else)
2) Then D3's chaingrab on Bowser does not count and thus, 4 characters.

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

And this is the crux of the matter. You think that if something completely gimps a character, one must ban it. The Competitive gaming communities of fighting games worldwide do not. It's not enough. Tournaments are not about every single character standing a chance at winning be it through general suckiness of specific matchups where one can be infinited because of special attributes (trust me, there are plenty of games where certain powerful combos are only possible on certain characters).

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

It is banned because on certain stages and against certain characters, it is truly unbeatable without even allowing your opponent a chance of winning. Fox lasering you once and then running away for the rest of the match on Hyrule Temple renders every single character in the game save for himself, Falco and maybe Captain Falcon useless, for example. It's an auto-win that doesn't even give the opponent a chance of winning.

It's not even "Don't get grabbed"-level. And it works on everyone. Heck, half the banned stages in Melee were banned because of various Fox stuff.

Stalling that's not stage specific is enforced because it's quite easy to tell if you're trying to infinite pound or infinite wall-bomb. A TO can easily be alerted and from then all, all eyes will be on you. Also, stalling is broken enough to warrant such a ban since you're winning by not allowing your opponent to do anything. It's not about your opponent just having a very, very, very hard time winning and having to work harder, it's impossible to win.

It doesn't matter how good you are, you cannot win against infinite stalls since they do not allow you to get close to your opponent... unless you play as one of, like, 3 characters or so (and even then, that's not true for some stalls). This is why they're banned, they're too broken.

At least a DK can win against a D3 if he just works hard enough. Possible, not probable.

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 fail and you do not despite the fact that I argue eloquently and at least quasi-civilly while you just ersorted to calling me an idiot, ignoring my posts and declaring me "fail at argumentation"? Without even addressing my arguments themselves? Even before you ignored me, you strategically ignored parts of my posts you could not refute.

Who's the failure here?

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

You're being curteous? By insulting several people who argue against you (not just me)? By ignoring my posts after calling me an idiot, then repeatedly bashing me, claiming I fail at argumentation and this and that? How is that curteous?

Also, at least I use facts to back up my arguments. All you have is "My opinion is that...".

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.

Only IC's grabrange is tiny and their traction makes it possible to hit them out of grabrange with simple spacing. Also, just don't approach them with unsafe stuff. Camp (boring, I know) and approach sparingly (and safely).

DeDeDe is sloooooow. Just outcamp him (and approach sparingly and safely). The defensive options in the game allows you to shieldgrab better... but the same defensive options can also allow you to camp to prevent getting grabbed.

And anyways, shiek didn't have an infinite against link.

Neither did anyone else on that list. Sheik had a chaingrab on Link.

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.

Tsk, tsk. Infinites are stalling if they're used to stall. If you just do it to get them high enough in damage and then KO them, then it's used to inflict damage and not a stall.

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.

No it wouldn't. You claiming it would and you thinking it would does not make it so.

We do not ban things depending on who it affects, as opposed to some people in this thread who have alluded to that it'd be OK to have infinites on the Bottom Tiers because they suck anyway. If there was a way to infinite Snake and Meta-Knight, the Competitive Smash community would let out an evil laugh and start doing it.

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.

But their matchup against DeDeDe makes them bad characters. It's a part of their metagame.

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.

An infinite doesn't do any of the things Sirlin said. Also, infinites to do not prevent gameplay anymore than combos do. They just last longer.

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.

Stop calling anything you don't like a glitch. "Oh, the developers didn't foresee this being usable in this way! Glitch!" - Not the definition of "glitch". Also, Sakurai is a moron in that case. He saw first-hand what set knockback throws did in Melee, yet he still put in several set-knockback-ish throws (most of which, surprise, surprise, can be used to chaingrab)?

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.

Chaingrabbing is available to all players if they pick the characters that can chaingrab. When Sirlin says "available to all players", he means regardless of if you're P1 or P2.

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.

And there are those who do.

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.

Life isn't fair. Things are not banend as soon as they're deemed unfair (or "cheap"). They're banned if they break the game. And since you yourself just conceeded that they currently do not, then we will not ban them.

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.

Maybe because they don't like it, maybe because most of them don't know how to. It's not dial-an-infinite. The timing varies from character to character.

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.

Or maybe they just don't want to screw up, which is very easy to do. They'd rather try comboing or setting up for an edgeguard or whatnot (assuming they actually know how to infinite). Also, maybe it's a friendly and who the hell infinites every single time in friendlies, anyway (I'm assuming the matches you're talking about are Youtube videos).

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.

No, DeDeDe would not be top. Because, among others, Toon Link can still destroy him... and he can't infinite Toon Link.

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.

No, it's not like banning the characters. People are free to use said characters. They just won't be able to win against D3 as them. We do not ban things to make things "more fair". After all, then we'd have to ban Pit since he's such a great camper and some characters get destroyed by camping.

The contradiction still stands because that never happened.

Yes it did. I'm pretty sure that at one time or another, someone used a stall on some stage and managed to win. Attention was brought to this tactic and it was studied in-depth. Also, it allows you to win without giving your opponent even a chance of touching you, not the same thing.

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).

Yes it did. Stalling breaks the game. You win, there's nothing anyone can do against you, even if they pick the same characters some of the time. This means that whoever hits the other person first wins. Which is bad.

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.

Because they noticed the Fox stall quite early on?

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

Because you can friggin' prevent this from happening quite easily. And because ICs are easy to gimp, especially Nana (at which point they can no longer infinite you). Because it's not like they have an easy time grabbing people anymore. There's no wavedashing, their traction is horrible and their range was severely nerfed.

 

[Yuna]

I replied to a bunch of posts but due to bad design of Firefox, I accidentally closed the tab and all data was lost. I don't have the time and energy to go back and reply to those posts again, I apologize for this.

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

Why does it have to in order for us to keep it? It's not a prerequisite.

And yes if the infiinite was found against snake tomorrow it would be considered.

No it wouldn't.

 

[da K.I.D.]

i bet it would

 

[FlashGearz]

I'm all for infinites and chaingrabs. THis is the best reason for why they are needed

Chain grabbing is a controversial technique within the community. Many players consider it an unsportsmanlike move because it can be inescapable when perfected by the grabber. However, tournament players generally see it as a valid technique which characters like Sheik, Marth, and the Ice Climbers need to overcome other deficiencies in high-level matches.

Without it Dedede would have weak quick attacks and vey hard to land killing moves. He would go down a tier list because of his lack of a quick way to rack up damage, into a perence where he can pretty easily KO.

Ice Climbers would be a gimmick slow pair of characters wish a crap grab range, and very little that qork for them otherwise. As it is, they already have a small grab range, and crap track range.

Falco is one of the only one that doesn't need his chain grab, but likes to having for comboing into a dair kill. His Laserlock is har get use, but is useful for getting them off the edge. He has a semi-small grab range too and has a moderatly hard time grabing

And now that I think about it, Snake the best character in the game so far can be hit by every single on of those chains, so it can't be that bad, and game limiting. It's just another way to widen the gap between beginners and pros

 

[WITH]

I just have to reiterate that these 7 characters will be instantly and almost always counterpicked when they win a match in a tournament as the game gets older. It may not be happening yet, but eventually any competitive tournament player will now how to do DDD's infinite and the release infinites. This means those 7 characters will have to win their first game, auto-lose the second, then change characters for the 3rd game. I don't see how its logical to choose an obviously gay tactic over 7 characters.

In half seriousness, if we can't reasonable ban chain grabbing, why not ban DDD...the net will be +4 playable characters to what we have now. (-DDD, +Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, Samus)

Oh, and DK is only winning tourneys because not enough people know how to infinite him yet. I doubt the DK winners ever ran into a semi-decent DDD in their tourneys.

 

[Browny]

if it wasnt for snake being probably the most succeptible to chain grabs in the game, then I might be against it. it just gets funnier every time i watch tourney vids of snakes getting 0-deathed by falco/ IC or chained well past 50 by pika, lucario and Dedede.

i dont have anything against snake, i play with him often, but considering the amount of problems every character has to deal with when they face him, he deserves it imo. who knows, maybe in ninty's testing where they somehow didnt realise snakes tilt range, they also gave him this crippling weakness

>_>

 

[Yuna]

I just have to reiterate that these 7 characters will be instantly and almost always counterpicked when they win a match in a tournament as the game gets older. It may not be happening yet, but eventually any competitive tournament player will now how to do DDD's infinite and the release infinites. This means those 7 characters will have to win their first game, auto-lose the second, then change characters for the 3rd game. I don't see how its logical to choose an obviously gay tactic over 7 characters.

The same be said about plenty of matchups where you're at a huge disadvantage if you get counterpick. Outlaw all characters but 1 since then it's all equal ground?

In half seriousness, if we can't reasonable ban chain grabbing, why not ban DDD...the net will be +4 playable characters to what we have now. (-DDD, +Mario, Luigi, DK, Bowser, Samus)

Because the rules of Competitive gaming are not written to maximize the amount of playable characters. We only ban stuff if it minimizes the number of playable chafacters.

Oh, and DK is only winning tourneys because not enough people know how to infinite him yet. I doubt the DK winners ever ran into a semi-decent DDD in their tourneys.

Boo hoo. Some characters have horrible matchups. That's life. Don't play as them or play as them and be prepared to have to work ten times as hard as your opponent for a win. Pichumains in Melee were well aware of how much their character sucked, but they played Pichu anyway. So should DK-mainers.

If you wish to main only DK, be my guest. But don't whine when you get gimped. Where does it end? Ban all chaingrabs past 4 grabs? Ban anyone who can chaingrab? Ban anyone who can gimp someone with a "broken" combo, like Sheik's F-tilt lock?

 

[WITH]

The same be said about plenty of matchups where you're at a huge disadvantage if you get counterpick. Outlaw all characters but 1 since then it's all equal ground?

Quite frankly its just a selfish attitude with all you people that call it a "huge disadvantage." You only trivialize its impossibleness because you don't have to deal with it (assuming you aren't a main of those characters which u obviously don't seem to be). This matchup is impossible unless you are against an incompetent DDD. A decent DDD will be able to hold his own without the chain throw, but get a kill every time his massive grab connects. Also, you keep telling DKs to outcamp DDD....are you dumb? He has a projectile, DK doesn't. Plus, his ftilt has more range than DK's ftilt.

Because the rules of Competitive gaming are not written to maximize the amount of playable characters. We only ban stuff if it minimizes the number of playable chafacters.

Banning for the reason of minimizing is the same mentality as banning for the reason of maximizing you dumb ****.

Boo hoo. Some characters have horrible matchups. That's life. Don't play as them or play as them and be prepared to have to work ten times as hard as your opponent for a win. Pichumains in Melee were well aware of how much their character sucked, but they played Pichu anyway. So should DK-mainers.

Pichu didn't get infinited. Ur dumb.

If you wish to main only DK, be my guest. But don't whine when you get gimped. Where does it end? Ban all chaingrabs past 4 grabs? Ban anyone who can chaingrab? Ban anyone who can gimp someone with a "broken" combo, like Sheik's F-tilt lock?

Sheik's ftilt can be influenced by DI, you can escape it and its not an auto kill. Ur dense.

The big difference which you can't comprehend for some dumb reason is this:
With a bad matchup, it's tough, if you make one mistake you get punished and take some damage. Maybe if you are at a relatively high % you die, but thats normal. With an infinite matchup, if you make one mistake at any % you die. Theres a huge difference and you are just too selfish to admit it.

 

[Yuna]

Quite frankly its just a selfish attitude with all you people that call it a "huge disadvantage." You only trivialize its impossibleness because you don't have to deal with it (assuming you aren't a main of those characters which u obviously don't seem to be). This matchup is impossible unless you are against an incompetent DDD. A decent DDD will be able to hold his own without the chain throw, but get a kill every time his massive grab connects. Also, you keep telling DKs to outcamp DDD....are you dumb? He has a projectile, DK doesn't. Plus, his ftilt has more range than DK's ftilt.

I would support not banning it even if I did main one of the characters who could get infinited. Because I'm not so biased I'm gonna whine about every little thing my main suffers from.

I'd just switch mains. I do not play Competitive Smash for fanboyedness ("DK is so cool! Must play as him!"), I play to win (and of course to have fun). If my main cannot win very well, then I'll switch to another (not necessarily Snake, but I'd never play Yoshi).

Banning for the reason of minimizing is the same mentality as banning for the reason of maximizing you dumb ****.

No it's not. To ban DeDeDe's chaingrab/infinite is to maximize the number of viable characters (+5). To ban walk-off stages is to prevent minimization of viable characters (around 4-5). It's not the same thing. Also, enjoy your ban.

Pichu didn't get infinited. Ur dumb.

But he got destroyed by tons of things. I'm not sure, but Sheik could probably chaingrab him across the stage into a KO-move. Ganondorf is slow, is largely unsafe and has an easily gimpable recovery. I guess we should ban edgeguarding against him because it's just too good against him.

Sheik's ftilt can be influenced by DI, you can escape it and its not an auto kill. Ur dense.

Doesn't mean you won't eat a lot of damage first... damage that is guaranteed. Obviously overpowered.

The big difference which you can't comprehend for some dumb reason is this:
With a bad matchup, it's tough, if you make one mistake you get punished and take some damage. Maybe if you are at a relatively high % you die, but thats normal. With an infinite matchup, if you make one mistake at any % you die. Theres a huge difference and you are just too selfish to admit it.

The difference is that the "infinite" matchup is much harder. You don't seem to have any real grasp on how Competitive gaming works. We do not ban things because of "it's unfair" or "It becomes a nearly impossible matchup". There are plenty of matchups throughout history that even without an infinite creates a largely as large gap (10-0) in winning ratio.

We ban things for the reasons already stated.

 

[WITH]

lol, I main PT, not DK...I am not biased it is just obvious how stupid it is to eliminate 7 characters from the possible tournament scene. People complained that melee didn't have enough competitive characters, but 1 maneuver is preventing a fifth of the cast from having a chance.

And I don't forsee a ban, I mean, is typing stars against the rules?

 

[Patsie]

none of us have been around for so long that we can actually corroborate whether stalling had a major impact on early melee tournaments; however, people did win by gaining a % advantage and using stall tactics, be it running away on temple or wallbombing or rising pound, and it was thus banned.

For your first paragraph, right, I agree with you. The community decided early on that stalling was overpowered regardless of how many people actually used it, right? As I said, I know that stalling may have won some games. It certainly didn't win the majority of them, or even anywhere close. Hell, I would say that the amount of games won by infinites now is probably equivalent to how many won by stalling.

So that means that we banned stalling without actually seeing tournament results. We knew it was bad and unfair, and we banned it without having to see whether it completely ruined every single tournament that was attended. My point, then, is that our track record shows that banning things does not rely on how badly they affect tournaments nationwide, but on how unfair/illegitimate the technique is.

I understand that stalling is unfair, and you've given a good reason for why. It's a disadvantage to anyone who can't stall, and it's a surefire way to win a game. I can say the same exact thing about infinites.

on another note, your constant ad hominem towards the supporters of infinites is completely unjustified, whether or not it was provoked by yuna in the first place. why am i singling you out, you might ask? it's not because i'm your "yuna fanboy," but because of all the posters in this thread it is most salient that you are the one making the most inflammatory personal remarks.

I think you need to calm down a bit.

I did post negative things about people in the thread. If you look at who I responded to, you'll see that I a) give a calm and reasoned argument to the people who try to do the same (see: AlphaZealot's post and others) or b) give people who show up on the thread and post a one liner bashing me or infinites what they deserve, ie: no respect.

Notice how I'm being civil responding to you, because you had the foresight to make a reasoned argument, which I appreciate.

this argument won't get anywhere because both sides are adamantly refusing to yield, citing that "points haven't been refuted," and contentions are just being repeated on every page with no progress. you're not going to "win" with the attitude that after typing out your carefully crafted refutation, your opponents will walk away with a dark cloud hanging over their heads, too awestruck to return. it's really necessary that we debate the subject one facet at a time, otherwise points will be continuously reintroduced and forgotten and nothing is ever settled. we also shouldn't focus on x vs. y matchups that feature an incredible amount of theorysmash with no way to possibly support claims outside of numerous actual matchups.

I agree that we should have some clash in what we're discussing. And, look, I'm not 'trying to win' the argument. I want to know the actual theory behind allowing infinites. It's not like I've been unreasonable, I've made several concessions (like the fact that infinites don't occur that often at all, like the fact that you can influence whether or not your opponent initiates the infinite, etc). I realize that you might think I'm not budging, but I'm understanding a lot more for why infinites exist. I just think there are critical questions that haven't been answered. (I don't know, maybe Yuna answered them at some point but I stopped reading what he had to say after his second post).

People might come in here and be like "This is a waste of time, stop arguing, etc," but seriously, I don't know why. It's not like they have to click on this thread and defend what they have to say. I just ask that if they say something, they give reasons behind their thoughts.

People get too mad when there's an argument. I'm a big boy now, you don't need to mediate and tell us to stop arguing when they sense there's hostility around. I think the majority of people have been pretty civil, and so far, I think that the thread has been fairly constructive, so I'm going to continue to argue my case. I don't see what the problem with that is.

 

[Patsie]

I agree infinites should not be allowed but it's just not practical.

Some charaters have inescapable combos which would not be banned while a character like DDD also has an inescapable combo. The only difference is DDD's can go on forever.

So now you have to decided on an IMPOSSIBLE rule.

How do you decide this? Say Popo grabs a player, throws him/her and Nana grabs him/her. Is this considered an infinite or does Nana have to throw one more time to Popo for it to be considered illegal? But whouldn't this be just like a combo if it ends there, say Nana fsmashes the opponent at the end. So does that mean DDD can throw the same player 3 times only? What about a 0-certian % combo that deals with multiple throws, how do you deal with that? Juat for a little curveball let's say DDD is in a throw combo and accidently grabs the person a 4th time, if he just holds on and lets him go is that legal? Or will there be some lax on the rule possibly allowing DDD to just throw him from the 4th throw and continue on with the match?

Its just nearly impossible to judge all this.

**The number of throws allowed was just an example, please don't post about that**

I've said numerous times how we can do this, you need to read through the thread.

Basically 1) you can establish a point where the infinite occurs, for example, DDD cannot grab those 5 characters at the point where they can't react, but he can CG people. ICs can't initiate another grab with the other Ice Climber off of a grab in the manner that you perform the infinite.

2) We don't establish a brighline for stall tactics, we just leave it up to the tournament director. Infinites can be the same way.

 

[Crow!]

First of all, LOL @ the internet. This thread makes me laugh.

Anyway, there are a couple of things I would like to point out:

Unavoidable combos are a single move for strategic purposes. There have been some people who have cried foul on infinites because once begun, the defending player has nothing that they can do. This is not relevant; like other true combos, once the first hit (in this case a grab) is landed, the game essentially ceases to exist until the combo ends, at which case the sum total of damage (in this case, arbitrarily large) has been dealt and the final knockback (dthrow or whatever) has been applied. To the extent an infinite can be used to stall the game and in that way prevent competition, that has been dealt with individially.

Also, having a one hit kill is not in and of itself a problem. Try getting a head shot with a sniper rifle in a FPS. Yes, individual lives are usually worth less there than individual stocks in Brawl, but fundamentally the concept is the same.

Of course, having a one hit kill is not always a good thing. From a game design standpoint, having most moves deal 5-25% damage and not kill until 120-170% damage whereas there is one move that does 999% damage and kills would generally dictate that the oddball should be nearly impossible to land; grabs are instead one of the fundamentals of ssb: shield > attacks > grabs > shield. Thus in cases where grab = win, shield is pretty much out of the defensive repetoir, and with just attacking and grabbing, ssb becomes significantly less interesting, which is a shame.

The question becomes, is it worth our while to try to manually fix the game? Certainly we can't fix every broken aspect of Brawl. A while back, there was a small movement advocating using heavy brawl as the tournament standard to improve the game. That never caught on, though its proponents did have some valid points, mainly because the default for tournament playing of a game is to play the game which was created.

However, tournament directors already DO try to manually fix the game: Items are off. In fact, items are generally "all off" so peach/D3 don't get the chance to randomly pull any. Certain stages are banned because they are bad for certain characters, yet certain stages that are bad for other characters/matchups are left in. Specifically, I'm looking at those stages that are banned only because they are too good for the cgers, especially Bridge of Eldin. Shadow Moses Island falls under a similar category, banned because it allows some infinites to occur (many of which are actually more easily avoided by staying away from the walls, though cgers again can take a grab from anywhere into an infinite if I recall).

What appears to be the case, and what I'm encouraging those who are in some way responsible for official tournament policies to reconsider as to whether or not it is what you really intend, is that having stage selection give a player (who plays D3 or someone similar) a nigh unsurmountably good move is banable, but his opponent's (officially, blind and therefore random as far as a D3 player should be concerned) character selection do the same is okay.

True, for the second game of the match, DK or whoever can counterpick a character to avoid the problem, but the same can be done with stage selection. It seems to me that if stage selection policy is being used to combat some specific flaw in the game, it might well be smarter, cause fewer unwanted problems (like losing perfectly good stages), and solve more corner cases (like character selection dictating game results), if the problem was dealt with directly and the game itself be modified to ban whatever action it is that we are trying to remove from the game.

If, on the other hand, the policy is to leave the game as is, then why should some stages be banned because of specific matchups? Bring them back. And if that truly produces a problem bad enough for intervention, then consider solving the problem at its roots.

Dang, this post was MUCH longer than I expected... like 4x longer.

 

[Yuna]

Again, we cannot unban walk-off edges and walled stages because then we'd have to ban otherwise perfectly legit tactics like certain chaingrabs, laser-locks and jab locks.

 

[Patsie]

Yuna:

You say that the only way infinites will be banned is if they break the game.
You define "breaking the game" as winning almost every tournament through main use of the tactic.

Right? I'm just making sure that's what you originally said.

I agreed that, if you're defining it that way, infinites don't break the game because people don't use them to win the majority of tournaments. I still called them unfair for giving people a complete disadvantage, but fine, I agreed that they don't break the game.

Here is where I used my stalling example:

They never got to the point where all tournaments were being won through stalling techniques. Not even close.

I agree that some games have been won through stalling. I also said that that number was probably very close to the number that people have been using infinites with.

So stalling, using your definition, never broke the game because it was never used to completely dominate the tournament scene.

But then you have a new definition for breaking the game:

Yes it did. Stalling breaks the game. You win, there's nothing anyone can do against you, even if they pick the same characters some of the time. This means that whoever hits the other person first wins. Which is bad.

So, breaking the game isn't about how badly the move affects tournaments. It's about how unfair the move is, unless you were trying to say something else with this post.

Which seems to then contradict this, from your same post:

Life isn't fair. Things are not banend as soon as they're deemed unfair (or "cheap"). They're banned if they break the game. And since you yourself just conceeded that they currently do not, then we will not ban them.

So my question to you is this:

Do we ban things when and only when they completely wreck the tournament scene?

If so, then stalling should not be banned, because it never got to the point that you're talking about.

Do we ban things because they are unfairly giving people an advantage?

If so, then we ban infinites.

That's the contradiction I'm talking about.

And I understand your point that stalling makes the game unwinnable for another character.

But, in order to stall, you need to hit the other person (even with a laser), right?

So I can just say, "Don't get hit with a laser" and use that as advice. It's pretty awful (and impossible) advice to follow, but then again, so is "Don't get grabbed." Just because someone might guarantee a victory a bit more doesn't mean it completely guarantees it; another character can dodge attacks until they outdamage the person attempting to stall. It sounds impossible, and it would just reduce the game to a completely boring campfest, right? Welcome to how I feel about "Don't get grabbed."

And I'm sorry for calling you an idiot and whatnot, but to be honest your first response to me wasn't a basket of daisies either.

The reason why I dislike arguing against you (and I'm assuming why others do as well) is because you completely ignore what people say, you make assertions without backing them up, and you reply as if you're God.

For instance, I even foresaw your responses and defended my claims in my own post, which you quoted, proceeded to ignore, and made the argument I anticipated anyway.

For instance, look at where you call me out for saying "glitch." I asked the person why he was calling things like stalling/infinites a glitch, but I prefaced my argument with the fact that I would lump things under glitch because he did the same.

Or look at what immediately after. I said that Sirlin did not intend his argument to go a certain way, but then gave a reason for why it limits gameplay. Your response: Sirlin did not intend to go that way. Do you really not see how frustrating that is?

 

[Yuna]

I'm sorry, I said "winning most tournaments" when? I said "when you cannot win unless you play as said characters", and not necessarily in tournaments. Some things do not requires countless tournament results as evidence to ban.

Also, were you around 7 years ago? Can you say for certain that several tournaments were not won or at least decided in part (like, placings) through misc. stalling tactics, which eventually lead to a universal stall ban?

A technique doesn't have to actually win entire tournaments. It just has to prove itself capable of doing so. Even with Wobbling, ICs couldn't win entire tournaments. Stalling tactics could, however. It was enough if we could see entire matches being won through stalling tactics that would obviously work on everyone.

We didn't need to wait until they won entire tournaments. Through analyzing the metagame, at this moment in time, ICs cannot win entire tournaments using infinites alone since it's quite easy to separate them.

Let's also not forget that it doesn't just have to be about winning tournaments, it has to be about winning tournaments in such a way it's impossible to combat unless you use the same character. Stalling is impossible to combat sometimes even when you use the same character. IC infiniting isn't even broken enough that they win every single matchup atm, let alone in such a way we're forced to all play ICs to even stand a chance of winning.

"Don't get grabbed" is possible. "Never take more damage than your opponent" is virtually impossible, especially when the opponent is Fox in Melee because of the speed of his lasers.

My first response to you was still civil. And devoid of flaming. You responded with rising amounts of flames... despite me remaining at least civil.

I do not completely ignore what others say. I reply to them point by point, addressing every single thing they say. How is that ignoring? Just because I think you're wrong and argue that you're wrong doesn't mean I'm ignoring you if I'm addressing the stuff you say. You have, however, blatantly ignored parts of my posts (before you declared that you'd start ignoring all of my posts), replying only to the parts you couldn't, in your mind, refute.

I've never claimed to be God or to be always right. Several times in this thread I've said: This is how Competitive gaming works. I did not write the rules. I do not perform infinites. Heck, I don't encourage people to perform them either. But the Competitive Smash community has come to a decision and I support said decision. I agree with it, even if I personally wouldn't do it myself.

If I'd been maining DK at the time, I would've simply switched mains. How is it ignoring you if I quote you and argue against it? IMO, my arguments refute yours. In your opinion, they do not. It's in no way ignoring you, it's ignoring your opinion that you're right and I'm wrong.

Also, just because someone did something wrong doesn't mean you have to repeat the same mistake, even if it becomes easier that way. Set them straight right away.

Also, I never said "Sirlin did not intend to go that way". Where did I say that? I said "We're not taking Sirlin's words for it as if he were God. We agree with him. Most of us agreed with him even before reading that (as in, we held the same principles). It's just that it's easier to quote Sirlin than to write it out yourself every single time." (not in so many words)

 

[AlcyoNite]

I, personally, am not against any infinite. I did read the entire first post, but let me say this: competitive gaming is not necessarily a place where exploits such as infinites are frowned upon. Take the big daddy of all competitive fighters: Marvel Vs. Capcom 2. While viewing the top players in these games, such as Justin Wong and SooMighty, their tactics are very advanced (thus proving their prowess in the games; they dont just win because of some trick they learned) and their choices of moves usually lead into an infinite or semi-infinite. Magneto's ROM is the perfect example (see http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Q3jFVb5nU8 ).

This brings up another argument that you attempted to refute, the tendency of players to consider infinites such as Fox's wallshining in Melee to be considerably more difficult to perform consistently. While this claim is valid, I would argue that this tendency is very much consistent with the overall transition of Melee to Brawl. Brawl made playing much easier: Recovery, Short-hopping, shield-dropping, ledge-grabbing, ledge-grappling, air-recovery, air-dodging, less punishability-->Lack of danger-->Less rewards for contemplative and predictive thinking (i.e. advanced gameplay). The infinites, to me, are simply a by-product of the shortcuts taken to make Brawl an easily accessive game that essentially "dumbed down" a previously deep game. If you are familiar with the Atari Dragon Ball Z series, it feels like the transition between DBZ Budokai 3 and DBZ Budokai Tenkaichi 1; the two really aren't worthy of sharing the same title (and in Japan, they actually didn't; tenkaichi was actually called DBZ Sparking, having completely removed the Budokai label). Moreover, Tenkaichi turned the series into a button-mash fest void of any strategy or relevance to the previous game.

I feel that Brawl shouldn't even be considered a sequel to Melee. To many, it's more like a scrub modification. It made everything easier, just like infinites. If by a year or so people wish to host massive tournies at such events like MLG and Evo for Brawl, I would say allow infinites. Other games allow infinites, and to say the ease of performing them nullifies any deserved advantage over the opponent is simply inconsistent with the overall gameplay of Brawl.

 

[Crow!]

Wow.. do you guys have lives? I come back from breakfast and you have already made two more essay length posts, both obviously started after I was done, and one obviously responding to the other. Sheesh.

Anyway, @ Yuna: given that your response was less than 6 minutes after I submitted my post, could you give some time to legitimately think about what I said, and then reply again? If you have the same response as before that's fine, but I'd like more assurance that you didn't just glance over a couple bullet points and make a cookie cutter response.

 

[Yuna]

Wow.. do you guys have lives? I come back from breakfast and you have already made two more essay length posts, both obviously started after I was done, and one obviously responding to the other. Sheesh.

Anyway, @ Yuna: given that your response was less than 6 minutes after I submitted my post, could you give some time to legitimately think about what I said, and then reply again? If you have the same response as before that's fine, but I'd like more assurance that you didn't just glance over a couple bullet points and make a cookie cutter response.

You provided nothing new. What you said had already been said before (in this very thread). Anything I would've said in response to your post have already been said at least five times by now... twice of which by me.

I just addressed your point of walk-offs because you seemed to think that the only reason we ban walk-offs is because of CGs.

 

[WITH]

Again, we cannot unban walk-off edges and walled stages because then we'd have to ban otherwise perfectly legit tactics like certain chaingrabs, laser-locks and jab locks.

why would we have to ban those tactics....beat DDD on bridge of eldin....dont get grabbed or switch your main to a character that can't get chaingrabbed. It may be a rough matchup, but tough, deal with it.

 

[AlcyoNite]

why would we have to ban those tactics....beat DDD on bridge of eldin....dont get grabbed or switch your main to a character that can't get chaingrabbed.

I dont't understand what you're trying to say...DDD can cg-->death on the bridge. Or are you saying that's something someone should try to improve?

 

[Yuna]

why would we have to ban those tactics....beat DDD on bridge of eldin....dont get grabbed or switch your main to a character that can't get chaingrabbed. It may be a rough matchup, but tough, deal with it.

Because DeDeDe's infinite on 5 characters (4, BTW) is for one thing a natural advantage. It doesn't require special interference like a wall (hence why walls are banned).

For another, it only works on 5 characters! Walk-offs and walls allows DeDeDe to kill a vast majority of the cast from a single grab. Not only that, Falco can do the same. As can the 10-12 characters with a jab-lock. I think Falco himself has a jab lock (not sure).

So tournaments would all boil down to IC's. vs. Falco vs. DeDeDe, who can chaingrab/infinite the other to death first? The tournament scene would revolve around those 3 and who can hit the other first (with a grab).

That would be breaking the game. The game would literally revolve around chaingrabs and various locks.

 

[WITH]

Only on those stages, and you would just have to adjust your playstyle...thats pretty much what you've been telling the unlucky characters to do, so why cant more people adjust? Just avoid the walk-off "combo." And outplay/outwit your opponent.

 

[Yuna]

Only on those stages, and you would just have to adjust your playstyle...thats pretty much what you've been telling the unlucky characters to do, so why cant more people adjust? Just avoid the walk-off "combo." And outplay/outwit your opponent.

You just don't get it do you? No one has denied it being a very hard matchup for characters D3 can infinite. No one expects them to win if the D3 is good. That's called "A bad matchup".

Allowing Walk-offs would allow various chaingrabs to dominate play. It would not be about 7 characters with bad matchups, it would be about every single character in the game with horrendous matchups. We'd all be forced into playing ICs because you can't really chaingrab ICs since Nana will just hit you out of it or something in order to not get chaingrabbed to death.

Competitive play would be limited to a select few, maybe 3-4 characters. The rest would be useless in play since one grab and you're dead off a walk-off, anyway. D3 removes 5 characters as viable characters. Walk-offs removes almost everyone. This is game-breaking. D3 removing 5 characters as viable characters is not.

 

[Crow!]

One point I have not seen addressed is how stage selection is considered different from character selection. How is being one of the many characters who can jab lock or something similar and hoping for a walled/walkoff stage for the first game different from being D3 and hoping for an opponent who is DK for the first game?

Seems to me both problems should be (and could easily be) dealt with in the same way. More importantly, it seems to me that you can't call one a problem without calling the other a problem.

 

[Yuna]

Because , again, jab-locks work on everyone and not just 5 characters!

 

[ph00tbag]

Because , again, jab-locks work on everyone and not just 5 characters!

Not quite. It depends on the height of the character doing the jabbing, the hitbox on their jab, and the size of the person they're jab-locking. Samus, for instance, can jab-lock Bowser, but not Pikachu. For most characters, they're short enough that this doesn't matter.

Then again, who's going to be picking Samus a game with walk-off stages. ^_^

 

[WITH]

you lose yuna, im done here

 

[ndayday]

That's why Brawl is fun, you have to learn to avoid those sort af attacks...but yes infinites are annoying. I can see why someone would get very frustrated!

But then again its just a stragety, and is probably just as "cheap" as some of Ike's moves. If infinites were banned, then why not ban other cheap moves that other characters possess?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh no! The scrubs are out in force today, aren't they?