Running out the clock and stalling

[Sky`]

Here. Yuna, this will end the struggle of love betwixt us.
This is made for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGgBN7jDnso

Running out the clock is bad.

 

[Browny]

Theres a difference between advantage and unovercomeable advantage. This is unbeatable against some characters if he gets a percent lead.

and MK ledgestalling isnt?

tell me what can falco do to attack an MK who is ledgestalling perfectly. Half the cast cant touch him

 

[Plairnkk]

and then Plank TAunted SK92 for no reason. IRL. =/

i was a good sport to everyone at that tourney, i didnt taunt anyone.

 

[1048576]

Why is it so bad if the winner is the one who is more pressured into approaching. I don't think anyone is going to try to be losing to "exploit" this game theory mechanic

Also, the arbitrary criteria we have now is used because it is time-tested and universal among all fighting games to date.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Look, the fundamental difference is that time limits are a rule necessary to cause tournaments to run smoothly; ideally there wouldn't be time limits, but this isn't a perfect world. Same applies for Magic tournaments, chess tournaments, ect. In chess, there's chess clocks. In Magic, they should probably have them, but don't due to monetary constraints (read: laziness). But Smash has no such thing, and really has to be enforced the way Magic is, by a judge.

 

[WITH]

stuff

You ignored the parts that you have absolutely no answer to.

Is it play Jigglypuff or lose? I believe in the MK debate it was established that as long as there are counters or evens it isn't broken. There are at least several characters that can counter this strategy.

Also, the part about taking the skill out that nobody cares about works for both tactics if that was too hard for you to understand.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Unless there's some really long list somewhere that specifies exactly what kinds of "Running the clock out" is OK and what kinds is not. What if I come up with an innovate new way to camp but that also runs the clock out? Even though other forms of camping also run the clock out, "my" way might be arbitrarily ruled "running the clock out to an unacceptable degree" and get me disqualified.

This is precisely why the rules are not a list, but a method.

The point is to make the spirit of the rule the letter of the rule. If you come up with a new way to stall, that's coming up with a new way to cheat, which is not something we reward.

Stalling is only possible because we have time limits, a metarule we created to make tournaments possible to run in a reasonable time frame. All tournaments have to create metarules to allow them to be run in a timely fashion, but these metarules can introduce abuses into the game which weren't present before. Stalling is a great example in many games, and means of countering it have been devised. In chess, there's the chess clock. The problem is that Smash doesn't have a chess clock, so it has to come down to a judge's discretion based on the criteria for what stalling is. Allowing stalling to exist is utterly unacceptable, as it is the result of a broken metarule and it is the way to fix it and still be able to run tournaments within a reasonable period of time.

In short: stalling is the product of imaginary rules we created in order to make the game work in a tournament setting. We created an additional imaginary rule to prevent that imaginary rule from having detrimental effects on tournament play, in a similar fashion to the rules concerning concessions and draws in Magic tournaments. Sirlin discusses why it is necessary to have such rules, briefly, and the basic reason is "we have no real choice".

 

[choice_brawler]

I don't know how you put my name on that quote, but it wasn't me that said that

that was a confusing moment

Fixed, sorry i dunno how that happened either ^^;;

 

[Jack Kieser]

You ignored the parts that you have absolutely no answer to.

Is it play Jigglypuff or lose? I believe in the MK debate it was established that as long as there are counters or evens it isn't broken. There are at least several characters that can counter this strategy.

Also, the part about taking the skill out that nobody cares about works for both tactics if that was too hard for you to understand.

I kind of wanted to bring this up because it tied in with what I was posting earlier about arbitrary rules. Yuna made his point that Jiggs' stall can only be stopped/interrupted/whatever by a few characters, for instance, ROB, Pit, Sonic, another Jiggs, Snake, Meta, Yoshi, Ness/Lucas, Zelda, G&W (one could argue that a skilled TL could predict well enough to pepper with bombs, that ZSS might be able to reach with her Up-B, or that Olimar with a full roster AND good prediction MIGHT reach with his Up-B). That's 11 characters (14 if all the suppositions are actually possible). So, why exactly is 11 (or 14) over-centralization around Rising Pound, but 12/15 isn't? Roughly 1/3 of the cast has SOMETHING that can reach Jiggs; that's called counterpicking/matchups. So, why choose that arbitrary number as "over-centralization"? To Yuna, Jiggs' Rising Pound might very well cause what he thinks to be over-centralization, but it could (very easily!) be argued that it is perfectly stoppable and that anyone who uses a character who can't reach Jiggs is not playing to win. According to the matchups, a large portion of the cast is just plain unviable against Meta Knight, but he's still not considered "over-centralizing"... he just gives a lot of people terrible matchups.

This could be seen as the same thing. I understand why Yuna (or anyone else) would be against Rising Pound... but given the circumstances, I'd be dishonest if I said that Rising Pound was over-centralizing/unbeatable.

 

[pockyD]

Why is it so bad if the winner is the one who is more pressured into approaching. I don't think anyone is going to try to be losing to "exploit" this game theory mechanic

Also, the arbitrary criteria we have now is used because it is time-tested and universal among all fighting games to date.

it's not "so bad". it's just not any better for that individual game than forcing the loser to approach

and if that doesn't fix anything, introducing the concept of double losses presents with no benefits

 

[1048576]

Difference is if your down 10% you're not going to sabotage yourself. If you're up 10% in the ither rule, you are going to start planking. The rule fixes the game by rendering planking an ineffective strategy. Nobody will use it unless they know they have no chance anyway, and they are an ***. By then, the opponent can afford to spare a stock or so and make risky approaches.

 

[DMG]

Difference is if your down 10% you're not going to sabotage yourself. If you're up 10% in the ither rule, you are going to start planking. The rule fixes the game by rendering planking an ineffective strategy. Nobody will use it unless they know they have no chance anyway, and they are an ***. By then, the opponent can afford to spare a stock or so and make risky approaches.

What rule? The rule that guy made up on like page 6? (That both players lose or do over the match) That doesn't discourage camping, that would actually encourage me to camp if I am down since it would guarantee that my opponent would lose out as well.

 

[OmegaXF]

Get the **** out.

How about Dreams and Honor? xD

 

[Yuna]

Ganondorf could remain invulnerable indefinitely in melee. This was fairly easy to do compared to many other strange ATs (like the 0-death desync nair to nair to nair to nair to nair to spike from anywhere on FD against a fox with ic), yet this is never a problem. It never was a problem. It is referenced no-where when people talk about reasons why stalling is banned.

There was a way to combat this, actually: Edgehogging him. It was just highly risky.

 

[Yuna]

Isn't what's really unacceptable here, that Jigglypuff could win without beating the opponent? Beating/KOing/finishing/whatever?
That it becomes a strategy specifically not to play out the match?

The unacceptable parts here is:
1) This works against the vast majority of the cast.
2) Once it starts, the match effectively ends.

With combos, chaingrabs, locks and infinites, they are either highly situational and hard to start (IC's) or work only against a very select few characters (D3, others) or don't go from 0-death (countless).

And the most important part: The match does not effectively end once it starts unless the opponent is on their last stock and it's an infinite.

I don't get what the problem is of enforcing the stalling criterion as "The player deliberately avoids bringing the match to its conclusion."

Because there are perfectly acceptable ways to stall matches that are legit and not bannable since you're still vulnerable and quite easy to hit.

All ways which render you untouchable and effectively end the match have to be banned. Those which are merely effective do not.

You can clarify this as "The player stops seeking to win (removing opponent's stocks), rather trying simply not to lose, or playing the clock."

Eyada brings up apparent cases of no-win stalemates. Cases where either character's initiative is strictly worse than inaction, and thus it is difficult to mandate either one to act. This is tough. However, we can deal with these by looking at a simple case:

And my question remains:
Why is it unacceptable to win by a timeout?

It is only unacceptable if it's a guaranteed win by timeout if ever you should get ahead in % (or stock). Because you are preventing the match from moving forward. With legit stalling/camping which does not render you invincible/untouchable, all you are doing is playing a keepaway and avoiding game. You are not preventing the match from moving forward, just making it harder.

If both Ikes are aware of the stalemate, who should be forced to act (and lose)?

They both deserve to lose for charging Side B like that. That aside, this is yet another reason why "Everybody loses!" is an unacceptable "solution".

People just don't want to face people who run the clock out because they find it "boring". Guess what, I find it extremely tedious to face Snakes. But I wouldn't ever crusade for him to be banned unless his metagame randomly progresses to SSSS-tier sometime soon.

Camping and running the clock out in ways which do not render you invincible or untouchable are perfectly legit tactics both in Smash and in Competitive fighting games in general. It's just another thing you'll have to deal with if you choose to go into Competitive gaming.

You ignored the parts that you have absolutely no answer to.

Is it play Jigglypuff or lose? I believe in the MK debate it was established that as long as there are counters or evens it isn't broken. There are at least several characters that can counter this strategy.

Also, the part about taking the skill out that nobody cares about works for both tactics if that was too hard for you to understand.

It is "The match effectively ends if Jigglypuff ever gets a lead... unless you play as a select few characters."

It's not Jigglypuff herself that is broken, it's the tactic. As all other stalling tactics which render you invincible or untouchable, this ensures you a win the second you start it.

This is, in no way, comparable to Meta Knight. Meta Knight does not auto-win against the vast majority of the cast. He merely has good match-ups against them. This tactic, like all other excessive stalling techniques, is a Win Button should a simple criteria be filled: Get a lead of at least 1%.

That is unacceptable. And it works against the vast majority of the cast and renders them unplayable whenever the simple criteria of "Get a 1% or more lead" gets fullfilled. It prevents the match from continuing, which is actually one the pillars for banning in Competitive fighting games.

 

[Smasher89]

(like the 0-death desync nair to nair to nair to nair to nair to spike from anywhere on FD against a fox with ic), yet this is never a problem. It never was a problem. It is referenced no-where when people talk about reasons why stalling is banned.

I think in Melee, a player had less to lose by going on the offense when they were ahead, but still, it's pretty strange that no one ever brings this up.

Double planking in melee, could use more poundstall but that would´ve been just dumb and the player who had done that would´ve gotten punished...
http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0JKhqhVqYE who won those 3 matches, the offensive or defensive player?

IC zero-death nair "infinite"? on fox as IC, vid or something to back it up? would be nice too see.

Ah, and about sonicstall, If I remember correcly the player on the stage controls which direction sonic goes, right, even though I´ve banned it at mine tournaments maybe it´s not such a big deal? But I agree with banning poundstall for obvious stalling in some way.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Do any of you guys understand how rising pound actually works? Or are you just assuming that it suddenly makes Jiggs completely unbeatable and untouchable for an entire match when utilized in Brawl properly?

 

[Yuna]

Do any of you guys understand how rising pound actually works? Or are you just assuming that it suddenly makes Jiggs completely unbeatable and untouchable for an entire match when utilized in Brawl properly?

It makes her untouchable by the vast majority of characters in Brawl for prolonged periods of time for no purpose other than to stall the match and run the clock out. And as such, it needs to be banned under the umbrella ban of "No excessive stalling".

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It makes her untouchable by the vast majority of characters in Brawl for prolonged periods of time for no purpose other than to stall the match and run the clock out. And as such, it needs to be banned under the umbrella ban of "No excessive stalling".

Interesting point of view.

However, what if I am using rising pound not to deliberately stay out of range, but to bait opponents to attack me while I am off the ledge? I can still be hit. But I would be in danger of being "disqualified," because my "camp" would be considered a "stall."

That, by the way, is the exact reason I disagree with the ban. I often try to bait attacks off a cliff while Jiggs, and that rule unfairly and artificially limits a central part of playing that character.

 

[Yuna]

However, what if I am using rising pound not to deliberately stay out of range, but to bait opponents to attack me while I am off the ledge? I can still be hit. But I would be in danger of being "disqualified," because my "camp" would be considered a "stall."

In order to prevent the need of biased judgment calls of what constitutes off-stage camping/baiting and excessive stalling, most tournaments have in place limits on how many successive Rising Pounds one can do before being DQ:ed.

You could very easily turn an off-stage bair into a stall by quickly Pounding in a certain direction if your opponent decides to engage. And who's to decide whether you're stalling or just baiting?

A tangible limit on successive Rising Pounds, while possibly arbitrary, is at least spelled out and can be invoked instead of "When the TO says it's stalling".

That, by the way, is the exact reason I disagree with the ban. I often try to bait attacks off a cliff while Jiggs, and that rule unfairly and artificially limits a central part of playing that character.

Do so without spamming the Rising Pound.

 

[Eyada]

Well, after further review, I see now that I failed to notice and explore all the implications of my proposed Timer Rule change. It does indeed degenerate to a game of Chicken upon further analysis. Moreover, due to my failure to realize this in my initial analysis, I also failed to see that, due to several of the degenerate states involved in this breakdown, the proposal is actually ultimately ineffective at preventing planking in all instances. So, basically, the idea is pointless and has little to offer in terms of absolute benefit.

If planking ever actually becomes so dominant that its effects utterly dominate the game, my proposal wouldn't help the situation. Since that was the whole idea behind its original conception, it's now quite apparent that my proposal is useless and should be discarded.

Thanks for the feedback and discussion everyone, and my apologies for failing to see the full set of implications before posting the idea. I was quite confident at the time, but I see now that I had missed a critical flaw.

 

[Yuna]

If planking ever actually becomes so dominant that its effects utterly dominate the game, my proposal wouldn't help the situation. Since that was the whole idea behind its original conception, it's now quite apparent that my proposal is useless and should be discarded.

Yes, but if id ever did, it would be banned straight off. So either way, the anti-Plankers win. Either it stays relatively quasi-harmless or it becomes "too good" and gets auf'ed.

 

[Jack Kieser]

It makes her untouchable by the vast majority of characters in Brawl for prolonged periods of time for no purpose other than to stall the match and run the clock out. And as such, it needs to be banned under the umbrella ban of "No excessive stalling".

Now, in all fairness, it's not really a VAST majority; that's exaggeration. 11 (at least, 14 at most) characters can interrupt Jiggs Pounding, and that's not a vast majority. It's a 2/3rds majority, sure, but I don't see how that qualifies as "vast" as opposed to "counterpick disadvantage". You're own definition of "over-centralization" (and thus, I have to assume "vast") is "play this character or lose", and there are PLENTY of other characters that you could play and still hit Jiggs, so it's obviously not "play Jiggs or lose". By your own previously established standard, Rising Pound sucks, but isn't unbeatable. Just CP better. Basically, one more reason to play MK.

 

[Yuna]

Now, in all fairness, it's not really a VAST majority; that's exaggeration. 11 (at least, 14 at most) characters can interrupt Jiggs Pounding, and that's not a vast majority. It's a 2/3rds majority, sure, but I don't see how that qualifies as "vast" as opposed to "counterpick disadvantage". You're own definition of "over-centralization" (and thus, I have to assume "vast") is "play this character or lose", and there are PLENTY of other characters that you could play and still hit Jiggs, so it's obviously not "play Jiggs or lose". By your own previously established standard, Rising Pound sucks, but isn't unbeatable. Just CP better. Basically, one more reason to play MK.

What part of "It falls under the ban criteria of 'Prevents the game from continuing'", something which I have stated at least 3 times in the past 24 hours was too Spanish para tí?

When I was explained how Jigglypuff can use Rising Pound to stall out the clock, I was merely pinpointing why it falls under the umbrella ban on "No excessive stalling". All tactics/techniques deemed to constitute "Excessive stalling" fall under the perfectly legit ban criteria (which I have established) of "Prevents the game from continuing", thus, all I have to do to prove that the Rising Pound Stall has to be banned is establish that it "prevents the game from continuing".

"Play this character or lose" is one of the main pillars of banning in Competitive fighting games. It's the one used when banning entire characters (and thus the one criteria I repeated time and time again during the "Let's ban MK!" "debate"), but obviously, there are other reasons to ban things, such as stages, techniques and tactics, such as freezing glitches and infinite stalls (they prevent the game from continuing).

Its only use and purpose is to explicitly prevent the game from continuing, thus it is banned.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The point I'm making is that it only stops the game against certain characters. About a third of the cast has no problem with interrupting the Rising Pound, so when your opponent is using Jiggs, don't use them, or else you run the risk of being Pounded to death. D3's infinite on DK also stalls out the game and makes it unplayable, but (according to your logic) that's not all of the cast, so just don't play DK. That's a bad matchup for DK, even though D3's grab essentially stops the game. Same principle.

It's not unbeatable. Again, D3's infinites stall out the game, but they aren't banned. Why? Because the corollary to that is that it only stalls the game on DK, so it's not important enough to deal with as a special case; just don't play DK. Well, why the double standard? Jiggs can't stall out the entire cast like she could in Melee. Plenty of people can now reach her and stop her. That makes Jiggs higher tier. Why should we care about the portion of the cast she CAN stall out? We don't care about DK. Just play to win and make sure you can play at least one of the characters that can reach her. No johns.

(For the record, Yuna, before you go all ape-**** and start ranting, remember that I'm just trying to make a point.)

 

[Yuna]

It's not unbeatable. Again, D3's infinites stall out the game, but they aren't banned. Why? Because the corollary to that is that it only stalls the game on DK.

The purpose of the infinite is not to stall the game. Its purpose is simply to kill DK. It just takes a long time.

Infinite Pound has no purpose other than stalling. And all friggin' stalling techniques that excessively stall the game in such a way you cannot be touched are banned! The fact that 1/3rd of the cast can combat it doesn't mean that it's OK that the other 2/3s get screwed over by a stalling technique, all of which are banned.

All stalling techniques are banned. D3's infinite is not a stalling technique no matter how many times you repeat that lie.

Why should we care about the portion of the cast she CAN stall out? We don't care about DK. Just play to win and make sure you can play at least one of the characters that can reach her. No johns.

If you cannot understand the difference between 1/39 and 2/3, then I have nothing else to say to you.

(For the record, Yuna, before you go all ape-**** and start ranting, remember that I'm just trying to make a point.)

Yeah, by invoking stuff I said months ago, trying to jump me and prove me wrong. You're trying to "win" against me by looking for any little weakness in my arguments because you're desperate to beat me at something, anything.

 

[Sky`]

The purpose of the infinite is not to stall the game. Its purpose is simply to kill DK. It just takes a long time.

Infinite Pound has no purpose other than stalling. And all friggin' stalling techniques that excessively stall the game in such a way you cannot be touched are banned! The fact that 1/3rd of the cast can combat it doesn't mean that it's OK that the other 2/3s get screwed over by a stalling technique, all of which are banned.

All stalling techniques are banned. D3's infinite is not a stalling technique no matter how many times you repeat that lie.


If you cannot understand the difference between 1/39 and 2/3, then I have nothing else to say to you.


Yeah, by invoking stuff I said months ago, trying to jump me and prove me wrong. You're trying to "win" against me by looking for any little weakness in my arguments because you're desperate to beat me at something, anything.

Here Yuna.

This song is for you, I say that I'm singing it for somebody else, but this is actually to you. It's how I feel about you.

There's nothing to debate, it's a song and I hope you enjoy it. :3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGgBN7jDnso

 

[camzaman]

It's sad how much more fun it is to watch Japanese Brawl players - I would have much more fun playing them then the stupid campy stalling mess that is American Brawl.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The purpose of the infinite is not to stall the game. Its purpose is simply to kill DK. It just takes a long time.

Infinite Pound has no purpose other than stalling. And all friggin' stalling techniques that excessively stall the game in such a way you cannot be touched are banned! The fact that 1/3rd of the cast can combat it doesn't mean that it's OK that the other 2/3s get screwed over by a stalling technique, all of which are banned.

All stalling techniques are banned. D3's infinite is not a stalling technique no matter how many times you repeat that lie.

I never said it was a stalling technique. It CAN stall, but I never implied that that's all it did. Running away stalls the game. Planking stalls the game. Sure, you could make the case that both can be stopped, but a skilled Sonic could play run away for 7 minutes, no problem. The whole debate we've had the last few pages proved that you can't ban one thing without affecting a lot more. We ban Jiggs beatable stall, but we don't ban other tactics that reduce the game to "unplayable". All or nothing, otherwise we're just making arbitrary distinctions because we want to.

If you cannot understand the difference between 1/39 and 2/3, then I have nothing else to say to you.

Of course there is a difference. Why should I care? Why is 2/3rds all the sudden to much? Why not 3/4ths? What makes 2/3rds so special that IT is the limit that makes the RP too much to deal with (you know, other than just basic counterpicking)?

Yeah, by invoking stuff I said months ago, trying to jump me and prove me wrong. You're trying to "win" against me by looking for any little weakness in my arguments because you're desperate to beat me at something, anything.

Yuna, what makes YOU so special? You assume I even CARE about "winning" against you. Like I said, I'm trying to prove a point. You can be right for the wrong reasons you know; that's ALL Melee was, one giant game that, despite all the wrong reasons, still got everything right. I think that you're right (stalling tactics should be banned), but for the wrong reasons (we can't ban them all, and this one is just as beatable as Sonic running away or Planking). If we're going to be arbitrary (and we will be at some point), at least use the same standard.

Again, using your argument to prove a point (and certainly not to you, btw). Don't let your ego get so big that you assume that YOU'RE at the center of everything (or at least this).

 

[Titanium Dragon]

However, what if I am using rising pound not to deliberately stay out of range, but to bait opponents to attack me while I am off the ledge? I can still be hit. But I would be in danger of being "disqualified," because my "camp" would be considered a "stall."

With items on this wouldn't even really be much of an issue, as your opp could simply shoot at you/throw items at you and thus make this less viable as a strategy.

The problem with this argument is that you're missing out on something which is perhaps important, which is what stalling is and why it is defined the way it is.

Magic tournaments don't define stalling explicitly in terms of time taken but rather in terms of intent, and the reason for this is that you can take a while for a decision, but if you're taking a while to make a decision when there is no decision to make and your purpose in so doing is to make sure your opponent doesn't get another turn before time is called it is stalling.

People whine about this, but conversely, there's really no other option. This is the cost of implementing time limit rules to make tournaments run efficiently. Ideally these rules shouldn't change who wins the tournament, and if the only good thing about a character is their ability to stall, that shouldn't make them good or tournament viable. In an untimed match, that stall of yours offstage would accomplish nothing of value, really, as your opponent, with equally infinite patience, would simply wait onstage for you to return.

All stalling techniques are banned. D3's infinite is not a stalling technique no matter how many times you repeat that lie.

Well, it can be used as one, but there's a rule that you must kill them at what, 300% or something? Its pretty clear when you're stalling with it, and when you're simply killing with it.

 

[Yuna]

I never said it was a stalling technique. It CAN stall, but I never implied that that's all it did. Running away stalls the game. Planking stalls the game. Sure, you could make the case that both can be stopped, but a skilled Sonic could play run away for 7 minutes, no problem. The whole debate we've had the last few pages proved that you can't ban one thing without affecting a lot more. We ban Jiggs beatable stall, but we don't ban other tactics that reduce the game to "unplayable". All or nothing, otherwise we're just making arbitrary distinctions because we want to.

D3's infinite is not, in any way, comparable to Infinite Pound when it comes to how it can be employed to stall. The infinite's main purpose is to damage and eventually kill.

Infinite Pound's only purpose (if you're doing it again and again and again) is to stall.

Of course there is a difference. Why should I care? Why is 2/3rds all the sudden to much? Why not 3/4ths? What makes 2/3rds so special that IT is the limit that makes the RP too much to deal with (you know, other than just basic counterpicking)?

And in the end, it is irrelevant because any technique which effectively ends the match the second it is started (unless it's a combo) is banned.

If you should choose to argue that Infinite Pounding should be legal against the characters who can actually combat it, then you have a case (kinda). But it'll stay banned for those other match-ups.

Yuna, what makes YOU so special? You assume I even CARE about "winning" against you.

Because you specifically paraphrased me and specifically said "Oh, Yuna, what you're saying now contradicts what you said months ago."

You not only bothered to recall what I said months ago, you're trying to use it in an entirely unrelated debate. Also, I don't see you replying to anyone else arguing the same thing as I am.

Again, using your argument to prove a point (and certainly not to you, btw). Don't let your ego get so big that you assume that YOU'RE at the center of everything (or at least this).

I'm not assuming I'm at the center of everything. I'm just assuming you have a grudge.

 

[Jack Kieser]

D3's infinite is not, in any way, comparable to Infinite Pound when it comes to how it can be employed to stall. The infinite's main purpose is to damage and eventually kill.

Infinite Pound's only purpose (if you're doing it again and again and again) is to stall.


And in the end, it is irrelevant because any technique which effectively ends the match the second it is started (unless it's a combo) is banned.

If you should choose to argue that Infinite Pounding should be legal against the characters who can actually combat it, then you have a case (kinda). But it'll stay banned for those other match-ups.

Well, I DO think (personally, although no one has to agree with me) that anything that reduces the game to unplayable when it starts should be banned. That's why I'd consider banning ANYTHING that has that property, which would have to (by my own standard) include D3's infinite (oh by the way, AND the IC's infinite). Unlike you, who (I guess, this is all I can gather from what you're arguing) says that sometimes, things that make the game unplayable are ok (D3/IC), as long as they're to your liking (one character/with Nana), while other things that make the game unplayable (RP, but, like D3 or the ICs, only in certain circumstances or against certain characters) aren't ok.

I'd NEVER try to say that something is legal against someone but not against someone else; all or nothing. Either it's always legal or it never is. Since (supposedly) our criteria for banning says that one of the triggers for consideration is global strength (works against everyone, a.k.a. over-centralization), and D3/IC's can be beaten by CP'ing (one of which CAN stall out the game against anyone), the only logical conclusion for me to come to without being a hypocrite is that RP shouldn't be banned. Either un-ban it or ban other comparable things.

Because you specifically paraphrased me and specifically said "Oh, Yuna, what you're saying now contradicts what you said months ago."

You not only bothered to recall what I said months ago, you're trying to use it in an entirely unrelated debate. Also, I don't see you replying to anyone else arguing the same thing as I am.


I'm not assuming I'm at the center of everything. I'm just assuming you have a grudge.

I used your argument because it was convenient. Lots of people know you and your positions/words, so why not use a well-known argument to illustrate my point? Oh, and you assuming I have a "grudge"? Yeah, that's called ego, because you assume that your opinion is important enough to warrant me caring about it. I already said that I didn't, but you went ahead and continued posting that I must care... I'm so sorry that you're convenient? If you don't want to be quoted, post less.

 

[Yuna]

Well, I DO think (personally, although no one has to agree with me) that anything that reduces the game to unplayable when it starts should be banned. It does not render the game unplayable! It loses you a stock! It's just a really good combo!

That's why I'd consider banning ANYTHING that has that property, which would have to (by my own standard) include D3's infinite (oh by the way, AND the IC's infinite)

It does not render the game unplayable! It loses you a stock! It's just a really good combo!

Unlike you, who (I guess, this is all I can gather from what you're arguing) says that sometimes, things that make the game unplayable are ok (D3/IC), as long as they're to your liking (one character/with Nana), while other things that make the game unplayable (RP, but, like D3 or the ICs, only in certain circumstances or against certain characters) aren't ok.

No, this is just you lacking logic. And repeating inane and already 29 times over refuted BS.

I'd NEVER try to say that something is legal against someone but not against someone else; all or nothing. Either it's always legal or it never is. Since (supposedly) our criteria for banning says that one of the triggers for consideration is global strength (works against everyone, a.k.a. over-centralization), and D3/IC's can be beaten by CP'ing (one of which CAN stall out the game against anyone), the only logical conclusion for me to come to without being a hypocrite is that RP shouldn't be banned. Either un-ban it or ban other comparable things.

Fullfilling but one of the pillars of banning is enough for a ban. Something does not have to over-centralize to be banned.

Yeah, that's called ego, because you assume that your opinion is important enough to warrant me caring about it.

No, it's just me having a very low opinion of you. It's called loathing.

I already said that I didn't, but you went ahead and continued posting that I must care...

No I didn't. When you said you didn't hold a grudge, I started talking in strictly theoretical terms when explaining why I assumed you had a grudge. I didn't say you actually had one. I said I thought you had one. The old (bad) reading comprehension getting to you again?

 

[Sky`]

Yuna didn't lyke my video. :[

 

[Jack Kieser]

It does not render the game unplayable! It loses you a stock! It's just a really good combo!

Why exactly did you feel the need to edit my quote? Just want to understand why you did something that... well, wasn't necessary.

No, this is just you lacking logic. And repeating inane and already 29 times over refuted BS.

Ooh, yay, the ad hominem attack! Obviously, we don't agree 100%. You telling me that I'm not using logic =/= me not using logic. It may mean that my logic and yours is incompatible.

Fullfilling but one of the pillars of banning is enough for a ban. Something does not have to over-centralize to be banned.

It DOES. Again, for one player, either the D3 standing, the IC grab, or the RP may (admittedly under certain circumstances) cause the game to be unplayable for one person. Either the grab infinites (and that's a misnomer, btw) or the stall will end, but only when the player performing decides to end it. Unlike a pure combo (which can and will end unless it's a 0-death), COMPLETE CONTROL is taken away from one character. That. Is. Anti. Competitive. Either anything that takes away complete control from one character INDEFINITELY is banned or nothing is. You can't have your cake and combo it, too.

No, it's just me having a very low opinion of you. It's called loathing.

Again, don't care. You can stop wasting your breath now, if you'd like.

No I didn't. When you said you didn't hold a grudge, I started talking in strictly theoretical terms when explaining why I assumed you had a grudge. I didn't say you actually had one. I said I thought you had one. The old (bad) reading comprehension getting to you again?

I said at least 3 times so far that my purpose in quoting you was simply to prove a point, not even to prove you wrong. I already said that it had nothing to do with you as a person or in particular. I can quote myself, if you'd like.

(For the record, Yuna, before you go all ape-**** and start ranting, remember that I'm just trying to make a point.)

You assume I even CARE about "winning" against you. Like I said, I'm trying to prove a point.

Again, using your argument to prove a point (and certainly not to you, btw).

I used your argument because it was convenient.

So, one more time, with feeling... I. Don't. Care. What. Your. Opinion. Of. Me. Is.
Don't care if you agree. I'm not even really illustrating my point to you. You're words and argument were/are convenient to use. It has nothing to do with you as a person. Couldn't. Care. Less. You don't matter enough to me to warrant me caring about some superficial notion of "beating" you on the internets.

Do you understand now? Can you let it go, or is it just too much for you to bear that I might really just not care what your opinion is (since, you know, so many other people seem to)?

 

[Yuna]

Why exactly did you feel the need to edit my quote? Just want to understand why you did something that... well, wasn't necessary.

A simple mistake when replying.

Ooh, yay, the ad hominem attack! Obviously, we don't agree 100%. You telling me that I'm not using logic =/= me not using logic. It may mean that my logic and yours is incompatible.

You're the one equating Infinite Pound to various combos (infinites are just that, combos) which eventually end.

It DOES. Again, for one player, either the D3 standing, the IC grab, or the RP may (admittedly under certain circumstances) cause the game to be unplayable for one person.

Yes, let's ban all long combos because they all render the game unplayable for prolonged periods of time! Never mind the fact that they will eventually end! The infinites eventually all end, at the latest at 300%. It does not effectively end the match, it effectively ends the stock.

It's not an auto-win the second one side has a percent lead. It's just a really **** good combo.

Either the grab infinites (and that's a misnomer, btw) or the stall will end, but only when the player performing decides to end it.

No. We have rules in place that force you end all infinites at 300%. You keep ignoring this pesky little fact.

Unlike a pure combo (which can and will end unless it's a 0-death), COMPLETE CONTROL is taken away from one character.

The same goes for all 0-death combos. Boo, whoppitty hoo!

That. Is. Anti. Competitive.

So is Brawl. I suggest you try banning it. We do not ban anything remotely anti-Competitive. And who the hell are you to call it anti-Competitive?

IC's infinites are highly Competitive:
1) They make ICs quasi-viable.
2) They force you to be less reckless and play a keepaway game + separate Nana from Popo.

D3's infinite forces you to counterpick. Counterpicking is a staple in Competitive fighting games. Not everything is black and white.

Either anything that takes away complete control from one character INDEFINITELY is banned or nothing is.

No infinite takes away control from the opponent indefinitely. Even if you repeat this lie 29 more times, it still won't magically become any less of a lie!

You can't have your cake and combo it, too.

This is, as I've already established, merely you lacking logic.

Again, don't care. You can stop wasting your breath now, if you'd like.

I said at least 3 times so far that my purpose in quoting you was simply to prove a point, not even to prove you wrong. I already said that it had nothing to do with you as a person or in particular. I can quote myself, if you'd like.

This does not, in any way, go against anything I've said.

You: Quote of me.
Me: What are you, desperate?
You: The world does not revolve around you! I was simply trying to prove a point.
Me: Whatever. I do not believe the world revolves around me. I merely assumed you were desperate to win over me because...
You: Can't you read?! I just said I'm not desperate!
Me: I just tried to explain why I assumed you were. I did in no way state that you actually were desperate (after that first time, before it was established that you weren't).
You: I've said it 3 times now! Wah wah wah!

So, one more time, with feeling... I. Don't. Care. What. Your. Opinion. Of. Me. Is.

Nor do I care if you care. You were accusing me of having a huge ego. I was merely explaining why your assumption was wrong. I was in no way implying that my opinion of you should in any way matter to you.

Don't care if you agree. I'm not even really illustrating my point to you. You're words and argument were/are convenient to use. It has nothing to do with you as a person. Couldn't. Care. Less. You don't matter enough to me to warrant me caring about some superficial notion of "beating" you on the internets.

I'm sorry, did I not just say that I do not believe you dare about me and that I believe you when you say my words were just convenient to use in the post you just read, quoted and replied to?!

Do you understand now? Can you let it go, or is it just too much for you to bear that I might really just not care what your opinion is (since, you know, so many other people seem to)?

Jack, I suggest you go back and re-read our conversation thus far.

I made an assumption, you set me straight and accused me of stuff. I explained why your accusations (also assumptions) were off. You then went on to assume for 3 posts straight (despite me telling you why you should stop assuming the things you assume) that I was implying:
* You were a liar
* You should care
* Whatever

Read what I actually say before replying to my posts. After a year of debating against me, you still make the mistake of reading only half of my posts and then just guessing what the rest says or you just read sloppily.

I did in no way say any of the things you just devoted half of your post to accusing me of saying/implying/thinking/doing/baking.

 

[Jack Kieser]

A simple mistake when replying.

Understandable. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

You're the one equating Infinite Pound to various combos (infinites are just that, combos) which eventually end.

Obviously, I disagree. A combo is a combo because it involves decision making. Read up on Sirlin's article about Failsafes in games. He also alludes to this in some of his rationales in balancing SSF2THDR in that the actual inputs aren't as important as the decisions behind them. An infinite, but its VERY DEFINITION, can not be a combo. There is only one decision: when to end it. I'll continue after the next quotation.

Yes, let's ban all long combos because they all render the game unplayable for prolonged periods of time! Never mind the fact that they will eventually end! The infinites eventually all end, at the latest at 300%. It does not effectively end the match, it effectively ends the stock.

It's not an auto-win the second one side has a percent lead. It's just a really **** good combo.


No. We have rules in place that force you end all infinites at 300%. You keep ignoring this pesky little fact.

Yes, I know I combined a few things. Now, onto why infinites cannot be combos. A combo (even a 0-D combo) has marked decision making. You have to see DI, decide where to move, what move best continues the combo, what moves link, etc. Infinites (like grab infinites, which again, are misnomers) don't have this. We have a rule that says "end it at 300%", which is kill range. Why not just say "get grabbed and jump off the stage"? It has the same conclusion. We're saving time, reducing the possibility of stalling. Once you get grabbed, there is NOTHING you as a player can do to stop it (aside from punching your opponent in the groin, but that isn't allowed ). It's not the match, but it's a third of a match. Who are YOU to put the arbitrary limit on it that it HAS to be the match? Why the entire match? In Brawl, a single stock can determine the match. "It has to cost that match" is a terrible reason, because ANYTHING can cost the match, so why not ban/allow ANYTHING? Again, totally arbitrary reasoning.

Infinites, AGAIN, only end when the player who is doing it says it ends. We added a scrubby 300% rule in there (also arbitrary, why 300% and not 250% or 350% or 301%?) because of STALLING. Otherwise, they could go on INDEFINITELY. That's why we call them INFINITES. Because they ARE.

The same goes for all 0-death combos. Boo, whoppitty hoo!

Nope. 0-D combos have decision making, they just end with a death. As I said, grab infinites keep going indefinitely (our scrubtastic 300% limit notwithstanding).

That. Is. Anti. Competitive.

So is Brawl. I suggest you try banning it. We do not ban anything remotely anti-Competitive. And who the hell are you to call it anti-Competitive?

IC's infinites are highly Competitive:
1) They make ICs quasi-viable.
2) They force you to be less reckless and play a keepaway game + separate Nana from Popo.

D3's infinite forces you to counterpick. Counterpicking is a staple in Competitive fighting games. Not everything is black and white.

I fixed your quote tag for you. You were missing the "/".

I'm sorry, I should have cited my sources. Sirlin has a lovely article called "Fail-safes in Competitive Game Design" where he praises games like GGXX for it's stance against infinites and shows why games should have anti-infinite failsafes. He also implies that he thinks they are anti-competitive.

Now, you obviously disagree. That's fine. You don't need to. Just as long as you realize that:

A ) you're disagreeing with the self-proclaimed deity of balance and competition.
B ) no one has to agree with YOU, either.

No infinite takes away control from the opponent indefinitely. Even if you repeat this lie 29 more times, it still won't magically become any less of a lie!

Yuna... there's a reason we call them "INFINITES". Infinite ~= indefinite. Small nuanced differences, but in the context WE'RE using, they mean the same thing. Note that you ALSO didn't show why my word choice was a lie. "It's been done before" won't win you any debate medals, I assure you.

I'm ignoring everything past this because I've already shown that I don't care/am done with this line of ignorance. You can keep ranting if you want, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[Yuna]

Obviously, I disagree. A combo is a combo because it involves decision making. Read up on Sirlin's article about Failsafes in games. He also alludes to this in some of his rationales in balancing SSF2THDR in that the actual inputs aren't as important as the decisions behind them. An infinite, but its VERY DEFINITION, can not be a combo. There is only one decision: when to end it. I'll continue after the next quotation.

I'm sorry, please point out where in his articles he says that infinites are not combos.

It's not the match, but it's a third of a match. Who are YOU to put the arbitrary limit on it that it HAS to be the match?

This is not the point. You claimed it ended the match. I was merely refuting your claim.

Why the entire match? In Brawl, a single stock can determine the match. "It has to cost that match" is a terrible reason, because ANYTHING can cost the match, so why not ban/allow ANYTHING? Again, totally arbitrary reasoning.

Stalling tactics are banned because of the pillar of "It prevents the match from continuing". Combos do not prevent matches from continuing, the match continues, the combo eventually ends. This gives you the victory the second you get ahead not through actually killing your opponent but by removing yourself from the field.

Infinites, AGAIN, only end when the player who is doing it says it ends. We added a scrubby 300% rule in there (also arbitrary, why 300% and not 250% or 350% or 301%?) because of STALLING. Otherwise, they could go on INDEFINITELY. That's why we call them INFINITES. Because they ARE.

Why 300%? Because all of the infinites are guaranteed KO at 300% against pretty much everyone on pretty much any stage at that %. If you think it should be lower, argue that.

I'm sorry, I should have cited my sources. Sirlin has a lovely article called "Fail-safes in Competitive Game Design" where he praises games like GGXX for it's stance against infinites and shows why games should have anti-infinite failsafes. He also implies that he thinks they are anti-competitive.

This is very lovely. Please point out to me where he says they should be banned. Yes, Sirlin doesn't like infinites and wishes games were designed without them. Incidentally, I agree with this. Neither of us, however, want all infinites banned.

We only want them banned if they are actually "too good".

A ) you're disagreeing with the self-proclaimed deity of balance and competition.

No, I'm not. I agree with Sirlin. You, however, are inferring "I wish they weren't in fighting games" to mean "I want them all banned" beause unlike, oh, you, we don't run around and crusade for every little thing we dislike to be banned, we only want to create bans if they are warranted. You, as usual, fail at comprehending plain English.

B ) no one has to agree with YOU, either.

No, I'm just one person debating. I have that right. And people have the right to disagree with me. And I have the right to debate them if I disagree with them.

Yuna... there's a reason we call them "INFINITES". Infinite ~= indefinite. Small nuanced differences, but in the context WE'RE using, they mean the same thing. Note that you ALSO didn't show why my word choice was a lie. "It's been done before" won't win you any debate medals, I assure you.

But they all end. Why? Because we have rules that force them to end. Nobody cares if they could go on for all eternity if said rules did not exist. Because said rules exist, thus, they cannot possibly go on for all eternity in Competitive Brawl.

I'm ignoring everything past this because I've already shown that I don't care/am done with this line of ignorance. You can keep ranting if you want, but it's ultimately irrelevant to the point at hand.

What ignorance, really? Do you even know what the word "ignorance" means as it has nothing to do with what was discussed beyond this line?

This is you having poor reading comprehension and refusing to admit to it. Would you just go back and re-read what I actually said?! Stop being so sanctimoneous about it and assume that if I say something, there must be 100 hidden meanings behind my words and then get insulted by what you're hallucinating I'm saying.

 

[Vulcan55]

There are rules in place to make sure "Infinites" don't go on indefinitely.
>.>

 

[RDK]

Obviously, I disagree. A combo is a combo because it involves decision making. Read up on Sirlin's article about Failsafes in games. He also alludes to this in some of his rationales in balancing SSF2THDR in that the actual inputs aren't as important as the decisions behind them. An infinite, but its VERY DEFINITION, can not be a combo. There is only one decision: when to end it. I'll continue after the next quotation.

Um, by your definition an infinite is a combo. You said yourself it entails one of two decisions--to either continue it or stop.

I seriously hope you don't actually think that an infinite isn't a combo.

Yes, I know I combined a few things. Now, onto why infinites cannot be combos. A combo (even a 0-D combo) has marked decision making. You have to see DI, decide where to move, what move best continues the combo, what moves link, etc. Infinites (like grab infinites, which again, are misnomers) don't have this. We have a rule that says "end it at 300%", which is kill range. Why not just say "get grabbed and jump off the stage"?

Because that would be ********, and you yourself are drawing an arbitrary line.

Yes, the infinite is stupid and is a result of horrible oversight during the creation of character properties. Is it ban-worthy? No.

It has the same conclusion. We're saving time, reducing the possibility of stalling.

The 300% cap already eliminates the possibility of excessive stalling.

Once you get grabbed, there is NOTHING you as a player can do to stop it (aside from punching your opponent in the groin, but that isn't allowed ). It's not the match, but it's a third of a match. Who are YOU to put the arbitrary limit on it that it HAS to be the match?

One stock =/= the entire match. And the entire match is used as a benchmark because it's sensible to do so. If the performance of a single move meant the end of the entire match, that would be a slightly different story. But it's not.

Why the entire match? In Brawl, a single stock can determine the match.

Can is not will.

"It has to cost that match" is a terrible reason, because ANYTHING can cost the match, so why not ban/allow ANYTHING? Again, totally arbitrary reasoning.

Not at the highest level of play. The logic you're using is equally horrible and arbitrary, if not even more, since instead of just allowing the ridiculous tactic, you're erecting whimsical rules to suit your fancy.

Infinites, AGAIN, only end when the player who is doing it says it ends. We added a scrubby 300% rule in there (also arbitrary, why 300% and not 250% or 350% or 301%?)
because of STALLING.

The cap isn't scrubby at all. And you essentially answered your own question in the same exact sentence.

Otherwise, they could go on INDEFINITELY. That's why we call them INFINITES. Because they ARE.

...which is why we have the cap.

I fixed your quote tag for you. You were missing the "/".

I'm sorry, I should have cited my sources. Sirlin has a lovely article called "Fail-safes in Competitive Game Design" where he praises games like GGXX for it's stance against infinites and shows why games should have anti-infinite failsafes. He also implies that he thinks they are anti-competitive.

Now, you obviously disagree. That's fine. You don't need to. Just as long as you realize that:

A ) you're disagreeing with the self-proclaimed deity of balance and competition.
B ) no one has to agree with YOU, either.

Sirlin is not god. Just because Sirlin says something doesn't make it good or true, although he has a track record of being fairly sensible when it comes to competitive gaming.

Yuna... there's a reason we call them "INFINITES". Infinite ~= indefinite. Small nuanced differences, but in the context WE'RE using, they mean the same thing. Note that you ALSO didn't show why my word choice was a lie. "It's been done before" won't win you any debate medals, I assure you.

Again, that's why we have the cap. What's so hard to understand about it? Why draw even more arbitrary lines? That accomplishes absolutely nothing, except the drawing of more lines, and possibly mucking up consistency for the future.

Don't fix what's not broken. And the game most clearly is not broken.

Stupid? Yes. Broken? No.