• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Infinites: Why, exactly, are they allowed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
I showed how stalling =/= automatic win, that's kind of what the point of my post was. But it's still banned.
While not automatic win, it can easily constitute automatic not-lose. Yoshi's Story? I don't like this stage, let's stall and hope Random gives us Dream Land 64 next time.
 

Patsie

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
441
Location
Nashville, Tennessee
While not automatic win, it can easily constitute automatic not-lose. Yoshi's Story? I don't like this stage, let's stall and hope Random gives us Dream Land 64 next time.
Yep, that means stalling is bad, but it doesn't violate any of Yuna's rules. He said: win automatically, without conditions. He didn't say draw automatically.


Remember: I am not a fan of stalling, hell, I hate the idea much more than infinites. I am just saying we banned it for reasons that would be similar to banning an infinite.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
Infinites will lead to situations where everyone will use it in every game because you can only win or draw as a result of doing so?
 

Monshou_no_Nazo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
421
Location
Oklahoma
I showed how stalling =/= automatic win, that's kind of what the point of my post was. But it's still banned.

You need to meet certain conditions first.

Kind of like how the Ice Climbers need to meet certain conditions before nullifying a stock, except to a much less severe degree.

So that definition is not consistent with what we currently ban, which is the caveat.
Just add what Ankoku just said, and there are your conditions for a ban. Stalling allows you to never lose.

If DDD could infinite any character without a wall, that would be viable conditions for a ban because DDD does not have the same weaknesses the IC's do, being a single character and having a better grab.

DDD would be able to dominate even players with high skill if he could infinite anyone on any stage, but since he cannot infinite every character, the still majority of the cast can fight back, and fight against DDD even if DDD does perform a chain grab or two.

And stages with walls are banned because it would turn chain grabs into a game breaking weapon. Since chain grabs are not broken on some stages, but are broken on others, just ban the stages it's broken on.

Yep, that means stalling is bad, but it doesn't violate any of Yuna's rules.
Yuna does not make the rules.
 

Patsie

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
441
Location
Nashville, Tennessee
Infinites will lead to situations where everyone will use it in every game because you can only win or draw as a result of doing so?
No...

I guess my last sentence was confusing. Here:

I'm just comparing stalling to the reasons given to me for banning something to see if it's consistent with what the community has done.

Once I get a consistent reason, I will compare that to infinites to see if they apply.
 

Patsie

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
441
Location
Nashville, Tennessee
Just add what Ankoku just said, and there are your conditions for a ban. Stalling allows you to never lose.

If DDD could infinite any character without a wall, that would be viable conditions for a ban because DDD does not have the same weaknesses the IC's do, being a single character and having a better grab.

DDD would be able to dominate even players with high skill if he could infinite anyone on any stage, but since he cannot infinite every character, the still majority of the cast can fight back, and fight against DDD even if DDD does perform a chain grab or two.

And stages with walls are banned because it would turn chain grabs into a game breaking weapon. Since chain grabs are not broken on some stages, but are broken on others, just ban the stages it's broken on.

Yuna does not make the rules.
Alright, fine, Yuna does not make the rules, but you said yourself that it must be an automatic win. That was disproved. Maybe stalling can be used to get to another stage, but that's not a win. In order to win, you need prerequisites. Which means the win is by no means automatic.

I know that infinites do not apply to everyone. I was just arguing against the first part of your definition for what we need to ban things. If it's not an auto-win but it applies to everyone, then we don't need to ban it. That's why I'm looking for a consistent rule.

EDIT: I've got to work. GofG, I'll respond thoroughly to your post at lunch, but after that I'm done with this thread because it's not getting anywhere. If someone wants to continue where I left off, that would be cool, but at this point Yuna is the only constant aside from me, and I don't have it in me to keep responding to him.

Good discussion though, 33 pages in 48 hours ain't too shabby.
 

DKKountry

Smash Ace
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
926
Location
Corneria... Fourth Planet of the Lylat System
The arguments presented here have produced a lot of good points from both sides. As a matter of fact, I don't think the matter can be solved in this thread. I think that if there's a conclusion to be reached on the subject, it'll have to come from the back room.

As far as my opinion on the matter, I'm the kind of person who doesn't really want someone to stop doing something that may or may not be cheap, I want them to go ahead and do it to their heart's content until I find a way around it. For instance, the "don't get grabbed" strategy, while difficult to do in theory, is, with enough practice, an attainable goal. I can attest to that, you just have to play a bit more defensively.

However, that's just the way I like to play games. I play a lot of fighting games so I'm well-acquainted with chains, infinites, one-hit KOs etc. and it's just the way I play; I find ways around deadly strategies like those, but I can't say that the same goes for Brawl's infinites. Smash has always been a different kind of fighting game, and therefore it has always had different kinds of rules. This here is just one more thing that's going to have to come down from the back room for it to be accepted by the general Smash community, whatever the verdict is.
 

Monshou_no_Nazo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
421
Location
Oklahoma
but you said yourself that it must be an automatic win.
I don't make the rules either. Why don't you ask the Smash Backroom Members what the EXACT, SPECIFIC WORDING is. I know why these things are broken, and I have enough sense not to change what I learned over silly wording issues.

You are likely not going to get a one size fits all definition. You are not going to even be given a definition at all. You are given REASONS, very good reasons at that.
 

CStrife187

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
465
Location
Greensboro, NC
why don't you guys quit playing theoryfighter and start playing smash: a game where an infinite grab doesn't actually make a character unbeatable.

also, look up spacing, and use it. #1 way to avoid shield grabs in all smash games.
 

Patsie

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
441
Location
Nashville, Tennessee
I don't make the rules either. Why don't you ask the Smash Backroom Members what the EXACT, SPECIFIC WORDING is. I know why these things are broken, and I have enough sense not to change what I learned over silly wording issues.

You are likely not going to get a one size fits all definition. You are not going to even be given a definition at all. You are given REASONS, very good reasons at that.
Yea, the problem is, I was asking for an exact definition because if I didn't get it then people had free reign to redefine what I needed to prove, which is how arguments that go in circles get started.

I'm becoming more and more apathetic towards the thread as the day goes by, so I don't feel like writing any more responses. I've said what I needed to say.

GofG: I read through Sirlin's posts and he's got some good stuff to say.

I planned my response but I don't want to write it fully out.

The first thing would be a preface that said Sirlin's methods had to be at least consistent with how Smash bans things, because, if it wasn't, then we can't accept Sirlin's method as the one we use to evaluate whether to ban things.

I would then show how things we banned (stalling, mainly) doesn't fall under many of Sirlin's guidelines, it just meets some of them a more than infinites.

Anyway, I'm done arguing here.

I understand, now, that people want infinites to radically affect the tournament scene before a ban occurs. I don't agree with this, and I think it's inconsistent from what we've banned before, but if that's how it goes then I can see why infinites don't fall under that standard. I understand that we ban stalling for certain reasons, because they make the game unplayable and unfair. I think that infinites meet that threshhold as well, but I can see that other people don't agree.

No one has convinced me yet that infinites are fair in anyway way for competitive gaming, but that's not what I originally asked in the thread, so whatever.

That's my conclusion. Thanks to whoever stayed and argued and avoided flaming.
 

bman in 2288

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
382
Ultimately, Hylian's right. Even if they are cheap and game breaking (...OK, olny cheap), if the TO allows them, there's nothing you can do about it. That's that.
 

Patsie

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
441
Location
Nashville, Tennessee
Ultimately, Hylian's right. Even if they are cheap and game breaking (...OK, olny cheap), if the TO allows them, there's nothing you can do about it. That's that.
Yea, that's always been true.

But Hylian's answer kind-of ignores the fact that the SBR can set general guidelines which largely affect and influence tournament rules.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
The SBR can set guidelines, but it's up to the TO on how much he/she decides to follow those guidelines. The guidelines are usually set to create the largest agreement among the general smash community to promote consistency and fewer turnout problems due to rules conflicts.

At least, I think that's how it goes.
 

Monshou_no_Nazo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
421
Location
Oklahoma
I understand, now, that people want infinites to radically affect the tournament scene before a ban occurs.
I don't think it's something people *want*. It's just something that has to happen before a ban occurs.

No one has convinced me yet that infinites are fair in anyway way for competitive gaming, but that's not what I originally asked in the thread, so whatever.
They're not fair. People play in unfair competitive settings, because it's still competitive. If something is so broken that it eliminates the competitive aspect of a game, then it will likely be banned for that reason.

It's easy to draw the line here. You simply aren't doing so, because you have this notion that anything unfair can destroy the game completely, when that isn't always true.
 

CStrife187

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
465
Location
Greensboro, NC
why does patsie ignore the fact that DK can still beat DDD because of his long tilt range and ability to space bairs properly so as to not get grabbed?

also, his f-smash and d-smash outrange DDD's grab and will kill him after you rack up damage with the others so he can still win this matchup, he just has to play smart. Playing smart is something you have to do in tournament play, anyway. Mario, Luigi, and Samus all have better projectiles than DDD anyway, and they can take advantage of DDD attempting to grab all the time to bait a grab and set up for a kill move.

This ignores the fact that the "infinite" on these characters isn't infinite until you're already at high percents because move deterioration causes the characters to slide to far away when D-thrown to be caught again unless you have time to insert at least two headbutts during each grab which can't happen until high percents anyway.

I'm not even going to address the IC infinite, because even with it they aren't high tier. This clearly isn't close to broken

As for the Marth infinite, I believe that one is actually being seriously discussed by TO's, but don't get excited because it's still avoidable, and somebody who doesn't play marth trying to CP a ness player with marth is going to be very predictable and easily punishable. This makes it easier to defeat a non-marth player when they're playing marth than when they're playing their main.

:edit:

and as for the walking re-grab DDD can get on Bowser, who cares about bowser?
 

Ulevo

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,496
Location
Unlimited Blade Works
The SBR can set guidelines, but it's up to the TO on how much he/she decides to follow those guidelines. The guidelines are usually set to create the largest agreement among the general smash community to promote consistency and fewer turnout problems due to rules conflicts.

At least, I think that's how it goes.
I would agree with this.

Banning, as stated previously, is all about ensuring competitive viability. Arguments will always be made on this though, as it is made up to ones own interpretation on what is competitive viability. I believe on some levels that it is only fair to make all characters competitively viable within reason. Not all characters are statistically great, and that cannot be helped. They are all however playable, despite the odds of winning never being completely up to the discretion of the players abilities. Things like Dededes standing infinite on the four characters do arguably make them competitively worthless as the consequence for being grabbed once is too high. I personally do not play Dedede, and I would be willing to wager I could beat the best DK out there, simply because I'm experienced as an overall player, and I know how to do the CG. That to me deprives the community of competitively viable characters, which takes away from the overall experience. One might think that they shouldn't even be in the roster. Saying that this isn't an issue because it effects four characters as opposed to the entire cast isn't really the point.

That being said though, because it is a minority issue and there are ways of dealing with the problem (regardless of how unrealistic it may be), it will probably not be dealt with.
 

GofG

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
2,001
Location
Raleigh, NC
Patsie: we aren't trying to say that infinites are fair. You tend to think that we should ban it because doing so would increase the competitive nature of brawl (banning things to maximize competitiveness.) However, we only ban things that DESTROY the competitive nature of brawl (banning things that minimize competitiveness.)

I suggest you reread what Sirlin says about banning things.
 

Amarkov

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
86
Patsie: we aren't trying to say that infinites are fair. You tend to think that we should ban it because doing so would increase the competitive nature of brawl (banning things to maximize competitiveness.) However, we only ban things that DESTROY the competitive nature of brawl (banning things that minimize competitiveness.)

I suggest you reread what Sirlin says about banning things.
I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

It's really hard for something to destroy competition. Even if one character had an OHKO move on all others, Brawl would still be somewhat competitive; the best strategy would just be to use that particular character.

For that matter, if this is true, why are items banned? Even if a bob-omb happens to spawn in the middle of your attack and kill you, you can still win, so how do items completely destroy competitiveness?
 

bman in 2288

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
382
They add a completely random factor to matches that would swing the match from the favor of one character to another completely separated from both player's skill.

For example, a Link manages to knock a Marth off the ledge. Link attempts to go edgeguard, but is too far away to make it. A star rod appears next to Link. Link then grabs that, throws it at Marth, and wins the match. Summation: Link won because that item just so happened to appear when it did. Otherwise, it could have gone both ways. In short, that win was just plain luck, and not a testament to the Link's skill and ability.
 

Brahma

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
455
Location
South Bend, Indiana
why does patsie ignore the fact that DK can still beat DDD because of his long tilt range and ability to space bairs properly so as to not get grabbed?

also, his f-smash and d-smash outrange DDD's grab and will kill him after you rack up damage with the others so he can still win this matchup, he just has to play smart. Playing smart is something you have to do in tournament play, anyway. Mario, Luigi, and Samus all have better projectiles than DDD anyway, and they can take advantage of DDD attempting to grab all the time to bait a grab and set up for a kill move.
It sounds easy in theory, but in order to not get grabbed by Dedede, DK has to limit a lot of his game, space perfectly, and not make any mistakes. Meanwhile, Dedede isn't just going to go for grabs, he can work the rest of his game on DK without fear of retaliation from a lot of DK's most potent tools. Ftilt can be shield grabbed unless spaced perfectly, Bair the same way.

Playing smart is avoiding a grab from Ness or Fox Usmash at high % because you know it will kill you. You change up your strategy at high % because the situation calls for it. Or avoiding Ganondorf Utilt/Warlock punch because they can kill at most percents, but are extremely slow and easy to avoid. Having to base your whole game for an entire 3 stocks around avoiding a single fast move for fear that it can kill you from 0% isn't playing smart, it's practically impossible.

I play DK and I think he is a competitively viable tournament character. He has a lot of decent matchups, but I can't use him as much in tournament play without getting counterpicked by Dedede and infinite thrown. Snake had the same problem of being vulnerable to Dedede until it was decided that wall stages were out. Taking this one advantage away from the Dedede matchup made Snake able to be a viable and dominating tournament character.

Dedede infinite throw is overpowered, there is no way around it. I really don't see why it is allowed. It's not situational, like a lot of other infinites, you can do it virtually anywhere on any stage. You can argue that it takes skill to do it, but something that you can master in 30 minutes of practice that is a guaranteed kill from 0% if you perform it correctly is overpowered, any way you cut it. If Dedede had a throw that killed the whole cast at 0% with one throw, people would have a fit, and it would be banned immediately. As it is, people hide behind the "skill" argument, and say it only affects a few unpopular characters, so everyone claims that it's fine. Yes, it only affects 4 characters, but to make even one character completely unviable in a tournament setting because of something so ridiculously easy and overpowered is more than a little ridiculous.

I really don't think it would be that hard to ban either. The difference in the chain grab and infinite grab is that Dedede stands in place with the infinite grab, and moves with the chain grab. It's a very noticable difference, and the timing is very different. If the infinite was banned, and the chain throw allowed (which I don't have a problem with), they could easily be distinguished, enough so that players couldn't argue that they were doing the chain grab over the infinite.

I think it's very disappointing that people overlook something like this just because it doesn't affect their character.
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
I agree with the OP. The very fact that infinites have not been banned yet still amazes me. Its stupidity to not ban something that no level of opposing skill is going to stop. It doesn't matter how many or few characters it works on. ITS WRONG!

You could use the argument that the purpose of the game is to win.

However.

The win should go to the player who is better or to the player that counterpicked more wisely. An infinite is not the same as a counterpick. It isn't just putting the foe at a disadvantage. Its putting them in a situation that is 100% impossible to avoid by human skill.

Its impossible to avoid being grabbed atleast once (and probably more) in a single match. Because they aren't just going to be grabbing. They are going to be using every tool available to them and then throw that grab on you when you are vulnerable (which will most likely happen atleast one or more times). And while they have every tool available to them... you don't. You only have the moves that would help you avoid that one bad outcome. And then when they have you, you are boned.

Why would a stage that would normally be fair be banned to stop an infinite that needs a certain part of that stage (ex. a wall or a walk off edge) when you can stop the infinite and keep the stage?!
 

fkacyan

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
6,226
I agree with the OP. The very fact that infinites have not been banned yet still amazes me. Its stupidity to not ban something that no level of opposing skill is going to stop. It doesn't matter how many or few characters it works on. ITS WRONG!
If infinities were as good, broken, and amazing as everybody is saying, ICs would be the character with the most tourney wins. But they're not. Falco hs a CG to dair to FSJ gimp on about half the cast - he's not topping the results either. D^3 can only infinite a few characters, and he's topping some tourneys because he's simply a good character otherwise.

Infinites are not impediments to competition in Brawl, obviously.
 

Doggalina

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,958
Location
Chicagoland (NW Indiana)/Purdue West Lafayette
I personally do not play Dedede, and I would be willing to wager I could beat the best DK out there, simply because I'm experienced as an overall player, and I know how to do the CG.
I doubt that. In Melee, I played my friend, an Ice Climbers main, and won, despite his using Wobbling. It frustrated me at first (I called it cheap a lot), but I learn how to avoid it (I used Falcon's spacing moves). We were at about equal skill levels. If you were to play the best DK out there, he would be at a higher skill level than you. Infinites aren't autowin, not even close. (And Wobbling is more banworthy than DDD's inifinite because it works on everybody)
 

ptealixpaint

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
3
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.
People like you ruin games. Want to play to win? play a game that is not terribly broken. Play Starcraft, or Counter-Strike or some other game that is properly monitored, updated and patched and controlled. The real problem with OMGCOMPETITIONLOL in a game like SSB is because there is no oversight to balance the game. The game is incredibly imbalanced, but what can you expect? There is no possible way Nintendo could have gotten it right the first time, or ever, for that matter.

My point is, get a life or play a game designed for being competitive. Hell, go play Tennis or something. Any game like Brawl is not a game you should play to win, but play to have fun. As soon as kids who had no friends growing up start playing 'games to win,' it ruins it.
 

Foxy

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
3,900
Location
Raleigh, North Carolina
I'm not sure that this is entirely true.

It's really hard for something to destroy competition. Even if one character had an OHKO move on all others, Brawl would still be somewhat competitive; the best strategy would just be to use that particular character.

For that matter, if this is true, why are items banned? Even if a bob-omb happens to spawn in the middle of your attack and kill you, you can still win, so how do items completely destroy competitiveness?
Limiting a game to one (or a select few) characters in a competitive environment is tantamount to destroying competition.

Items absolutely destroy competition because they give a random advantage to a random player at a random time. (Though actually they favor the losing player slightly, which is even worse.) How can a game be competitive when working to become a better player won't even increase your chances of winning? This is an undisputed truth.
 

Foxy

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
3,900
Location
Raleigh, North Carolina
Its stupidity to not ban something that no level of opposing skill is going to stop.
A good DK will steal destroy a poor D3, and this is obvious to anyone competitively active. If you've never been to a tourney, you can't make statements like that.

Its impossible to avoid being grabbed atleast once (and probably more) in a single match. Because they aren't just going to be grabbing. They are going to be using every tool available to them and then throw that grab on you when you are vulnerable (which will most likely happen atleast one or more times).
This is only what a very good player will do when trying to get grabs. 99% of all D3 players in a matchup where they can infinite, Marth players against a Ness, or IC players who've mastered the infinite will put a HUGE priority on landing grabs on you, which is easy to punish.

Why would a stage that would normally be fair be banned to stop an infinite that needs a certain part of that stage (ex. a wall or a walk off edge) when you can stop the infinite and keep the stage?!
It's called an infinite because it can't be stopped.
 

ROOOOY!

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
3,118
Location
Lincolnshire, England.
NNID
Gengite
3DS FC
5456-0280-5804
I thought things were banned for being game breaking?
If a grab = -1 stock for enemy isn't game breaking, what the hell is? This competitive community never ceases to amaze me..
 

MECH

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
14
I am leaning towards Yuna on this one. Competitive gaming means doing what it takes to win. If you don't want to play with a characters abilities or play against someone who can do those abilities i.e. CG's, wallshines, etc. If you don't want to play with these, than play with friends and make rules saying "You can't do this, you can't do that". Don't get grabbed is a very legit argument. IC's have an extremely small grab range, plus they can't do it unless both nana and popo are present. Seperate and keep space between you and your foe.

Wobbling wasn't that necessary in tournys becuz you could Dthrow, Dair (with nana), and regrab. There are ways of getting around a grab, you just have to be fast enough.
 

Chris Lionheart

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,076
Location
Make Your Move
A good DK will steal destroy a poor D3, and this is obvious to anyone competitively active. If you've never been to a tourney, you can't make statements like that.



This is only what a very good player will do when trying to get grabs. 99% of all D3 players in a matchup where they can infinite, Marth players against a Ness, or IC players who've mastered the infinite will put a HUGE priority on landing grabs on you, which is easy to punish.



It's called an infinite because it can't be stopped.
Wow just wow.

The principle of competitiveness is not always that a good player will beat a horrible player. Most of the time, skill is at a fairly close level, with the better person being only slightly more deserving of said win than opponent. In such case, it would take an innate character or playstyle advantage/disadvantage to even the scores (or seperate them further.) Anything more than this, such as items, infinites, bad stages, etc. shouldn't be allowed.

And I can make such statements because I have something that the majority of competitive players seem to lack... COMMON SENSE.

Only a bad player will put almost all of their priority on grabbing you. If the player has any skill at all, then they are going to set you up for a grab rather than hoping to get lucky. And its not terribly hard to set someone up for a grab. Even something as common as defensive play allows you to grab during an opponents lag.

That last statement was ********. By stop the infinite I meant BAN the infinite. What wording in that last paragraph made you think I was talking about manually stopping the infinite which is impossible...
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
Only a bad player will put almost all of their priority on grabbing you. If the player has any skill at all, then they are going to set you up for a grab rather than hoping to get lucky.
Chu arguably performed better in tournaments where Wobbles was not allowed because he tended to focus more on getting grabs in tournaments where it was allowed. If the possibility of an instant KO is there, it'll affect your play.
 

Ekoix.exe

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
567
Location
Auspiciously close to NoobCake
People like you ruin games. Want to play to win? play a game that is not terribly broken. Play Starcraft, or Counter-Strike or some other game that is properly monitored, updated and patched and controlled. The real problem with OMGCOMPETITIONLOL in a game like SSB is because there is no oversight to balance the game. The game is incredibly imbalanced, but what can you expect? There is no possible way Nintendo could have gotten it right the first time, or ever, for that matter.

My point is, get a life or play a game designed for being competitive. Hell, go play Tennis or something. Any game like Brawl is not a game you should play to win, but play to have fun. As soon as kids who had no friends growing up start playing 'games to win,' it ruins it.
As hypocritical as I may sound right now, This shows how some new posters fail. Brawl isn't terribly broken if you've been paying any attention. I ask you, why is it because Snake is being picked/winning the most at high tier playing? Is it because of his broken *** cheer? (SNAKE SNAKE SNAAAAAAKE). If you dont like the way the game is, dont play it. There are some things, that suck for you, and always will be there. This applys to LIFE aswell. Play to win, and have fun at the same time. Its possible.
 

fkacyan

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
6,226
People like you ruin games. Want to play to win? play a game that is not terribly broken. Play Starcraft, or Counter-Strike or some other game that is properly monitored, updated and patched and controlled. The real problem with OMGCOMPETITIONLOL in a game like SSB is because there is no oversight to balance the game. The game is incredibly imbalanced, but what can you expect? There is no possible way Nintendo could have gotten it right the first time, or ever, for that matter.

My point is, get a life or play a game designed for being competitive. Hell, go play Tennis or something. Any game like Brawl is not a game you should play to win, but play to have fun. As soon as kids who had no friends growing up start playing 'games to win,' it ruins it.
A game does not have to be designed with competition in mind to be competitive.

Melee is a great example of this.

By the way, if we ruin games, don't play with us. There are literally millions of others to play with that want nothing to do with us either.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
IIRC, there was an infinite in a certain other fighting game? Setup into infinite = loss of GAME in a best of 3 set. I don't remember that being banned, either. :V
 

missingnomaster

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
1,620
Location
Glitch City
I'm just gonna throw this out here: The Ness/Lucas release grab would be a lot easier to ban than any other infinites. Just ban following up a release grab with a release grab. It's a poor tactic outside of infiniting those two characters, and Marth/Charizard/Squirtle could still follow up with a throw, or smash, or whatever they are able to get out, as long as it's not a release grab.

Even if it doesn't change anything, I just wanted to point that out, because it would be a lot more difficult to ban DDD's infinite, or the IC's infinites.
 

fkacyan

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
6,226
Quoted For Truth.
QFI - Quoted for idiocy.

Only the Ice Climbers and D3 (only five characters, mind you) have truly gamebreaking infinites. As I've already stated, if these were as easy to land and gamebreaking as you say, I think we'd see a lot more ICs AND D3s winning tourneys around the nation. Funny how they don't.

Well, to be fair, D3 wins, but once again, he's a good character without the CG.

EDIT:
IIRC, there was an infinite in a certain other fighting game? Setup into infinite = loss of GAME in a best of 3 set. I don't remember that being banned, either. :V
Like five characters have infinites on Potemkin in GGXX, and they're not banned. They're not particularly hard to do (for a 2d fighter in that vein, at least. Most Smash players would have issues with the input speed and precision, methinks, though I could be wrong), either.

As well, Testament has an infinite loop attack. He's already top tier without that.

In other words, people, they don't ban infinites, even in games where they matter more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom