The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Grim Tuesday]

The fact that I can re-grab off of a back-throw at 999% in training mode.

What evidence do YOU have to say that I'M incorrect.

 

[DeLux]

Which characters were you using?

I just pointed it out that it matters

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was doing it against Meta Knight.

Why would the character affect anything? As long as you grab on the 1st frame they are released from the back throw, NOTHING changes depending on percentage, character size or weight.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I feel the BBRRC ought to consider rewording the bolded part.

I assume the goal of the rule seeks to include the Ice Climbers chain grab in the tactics that can't be done past 300%.

However, after testing I've confirmed that the ICs CG is not an infinite on at least three members of the cast. It will most likely end up being significantly more. At the same time, I've confirmed that it IS a true infinite on one member of the cast. However, It's 5am and I just did a huge amount of testing in one night and don't want to do anymore for now.

But I'm positive that I'm correct.

Interesting, though it's a blanket rule to cover any infinites, current and future.

 

[DeLux]

Well, two things to consider:

First, if ONLY Bthrow is available, it's no longer an infinite because you can't Bthrow in place. It's a walking CG that moves slightly because of sync mechanics.

Second, it does matter. In one frame after throw hitbox, the lighter the character, the further it will move. That's how the game gives the illusion of smooth motion. On say, Jiggly puff, the character moves too far in that one frame after the throw hitbox on the first regrabble frame to be regrabbed

You're wrong Grim, sorry

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Yet MK isn't too light? That's surprising.

Guess I was wrong, sorry for the trouble

 

[DeLux]

Pikachu, Kirby, Mr. Game & Watch, Squirtle, and Jigglypuff are lighter.

So even if Bthrow is the only CG to work, you'd still need for one of the other two CGs (fthrow or dthrow) to work for it to be infinite because of the mechanics it's a waking CG that can't be reversed with only Bthrows.

I know for sure that Dthrow and Fthrow do not work on Jiggs

 

[Grim Tuesday]

EDIT: Herp, ignore, thinking of Melee.

 

[DeLux]

Bthrow might work on every character, but if only Bthrow works then it ceases being an infinite.

Dthrow and Fthrow stop working at high percents, definitely Jiggs, G&W, and Squirtle unless I'm messing up my frame testing (possible but super highly unlikely because I'm using hitbubble textures to help guide testing lol)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's not like it matters, no one is technically able to extend an infinite far past 300% anyway.

 

[DeLux]

That's like saying "Don't have an LGL because nobody can frame perfect plank anyways"

I'd argue that CGing is easier than frame perfect planking because most CGing past 300% isn't frame perfect, it's windows of at least 2 frames.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Planking doesn't need to be frame perfect to be broken.

If it did, then yes, we wouldn't need a LGL.

Not that we need a LGL anyway, MK should just be banned.

 

[DeLux]

Regardless, I've essentially frame broken down that Meta Knight, Kirby, Mr. Game & Watch, Squirtle, and Jigglypuff can't be infinited

This isn't accounting for DI either which geometrically speaking would have some influence

 

[Ghostbone]

Pretty sure you can infinite with just b-throw.....

Why wouldn't you be able to? Popo and Nana would end up throwing left and right over and over again in place......

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Nah, you can't make Nana Bthrow from a standing position. It's ******** :/

 

[DeLux]

It's not in place. It becomes a walking CG and therefore not infinite.

I'm doing rush testing, so I'm scratching off characters that I find out work.

 

[Ghostbone]

Nah, you can't make Nana Bthrow from a standing position. It's ******** :/

So Popo gradually ends up walking one direction or something?

Ok then.

 

[DeLux]

If you Bthrow With Nana, Popo has to walk a significant amount to reach the regrabbing spacing window

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Make your own thread, I'm sure it's interesting, but it's a semantics debate and kinda unimportant. ICs can't chaingrab past 300% on people, done.

 

[DeLux]

Then they should change the rule to say that.

It's relevant to the topic of the thread so it should be discussed.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No I mean there's just no reason to bother. Even if that's not the literal rules text, everyone knows exactly who the ruleset is referring to.

 

[DeLux]

Off topic, I find it weird that Meta Knight can't be infinited based on testing, but Pikachu can. lol

(they are the same weight and roughly the same size)

Broken



Why would you not change the literal rule then? If the rule stands then if I CG MK past 300, I'm not breaking the rule. At which point, I'm going to time people out without breaking the rule.

 

[Tesh]

@ Twinkle, Watching MK plank and get away with it almost all of the time probably deters people from trying to game. Watching anyone else plank and have the chance to get oursmarted and gimped probably won't scare people away.

Personally I'd be more scared away if I saw the same and thought"wow cool, i wanna main bowser" then I see DDD vs Bowser. THAT would scare me away.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why would you not change the literal rule then? If the rule stands then if I CG MK past 300, I'm not breaking the rule. At which point, I'm going to time people out without breaking the rule.

Go ahead and win some tournaments doing that and they might bother, lol.

 

[Sinister Slush]

It's not like it matters, no one is technically able to extend an infinite far past 300% anyway.

Go ahead and win some tournaments doing that and they might bother, lol.

Not like you'll see Yoshi win tournaments any time soon... Or ever. But he's able to Infinite Wario with Standing CG, And I believe we even have enough time to Re-Grab him by pivot grabbing from the other side of him once we GR him.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was talking specifically about ICs' infinites.

 

[MK26]

thats just semantics, lux

if you can take your opponent to 300% by doing a repeated, inescapable set of motions, for all intents and purposes its an infinite

and that isnt even the only way to do infinites, either...even if its escapable, if its a repeated set of motions and your opponent does not escape by 300%, you have to stop at that point (see: laser lock against a wall, you can SDI out but do nothing else)

If you really want to try to justify your chaingrabbing mk past 300% by saying its not an infinite because you cant do it at 999%, go right ahead and see if your TO flies with that explanation

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I'm not going to argue with Lux about ICs because he taught me almost everything know about the character..lol

However I can't really see a reason to allow Chaingrabbing past 300%. You can label the Ice Climbers' Chaingrab as whatever you want..that isn't important here. What is important is that without tripping or player error, you can't really escape it after certain percents (I'm referring to mashing out). Anything past 300% would just be stalling anyway I still agree with that rule.

I mean I don't know who could consistently Chaingrab any character they want up to 300% in a tournament situation but I don't see why we should allow it. And if we had to do it for Ice Climbers we'd have to do out of obligation for DDD or face a lot scrutiny.

Imagine: Getting D-Throwed by DDD up to 999%. When Down Throw is stale it does 3%. You have to pummel once every five throws which will do a maximum of 3%. That would literally drag on minutes.

I mean we COULD change the text but this is a semantics debate..lol

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

lux is right tho, you guys are all talking about earlier how if it isn't specifically covered in the rules then it is legal. and since lux found a loop hole in CG-ing with ICs making it not infinite depending on the character then he can get away with it because the rules specifically apply to infinites only. i mean you guys state in the rule set that it will be updated and modified as neccessary, how much work could one sentence of text be really? just rectify the situation so that it doesn't become an issue

 

[DeLux]

^this

Thank God

I'm not saying I want to CG someone to time out. I'm just saying by the rules, I COULD. Which is an issue lol. 300% should definie an infinite, not have an undefinied infinite be limited by 300% damage imo.

I'm not saying to allow it. I'm saying that based on the rules, it IS allowed. The rule should be amended to fix that.

Tech, this is why I should be on the committee
Them loopholes lol

 

[AlphaZealot]

It isn't a loophole. What you are calling a chaingrab is in fact an infinite as is accepted by the community. In an argument of semantics, as some have put it, the commonly accepted definition is what is used. More importantly, every TO knows that the IC "chain grabs" apply to the 300% rule.

if you can take your opponent to 300% by doing a repeated, inescapable set of motions, for all intents and purposes its an infinite

Basically this, except you don't need the word "repeated". Just something that makes it so you can't escape (ie have control over your character) that can potentially last up to 300%, at which point you have to use a KO move.

 

[DeLux]

Why not include that in the rule somewhere as a definition?

By the technical definition, it isn't an infinite.

If it isn't listed, it's debatable. It would take two seconds for you guys to supplement a definition. How is that unreasonable?

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

don't be lazy, just modify the rules to make it not a problem at all. seriously it takes 2 seconds to type a sentence, if you cant do that that's pretty lazy

 

[DeLux]

Feel free to call it "DeLux's Semantics Rule"

 

[AlphaZealot]

If it isn't listed, it's debatable. It would take two seconds for you guys to supplement a definition. How is that unreasonable?

YOU can debate it, to no point whatsoever, but every TO going back to 2005 in Melee knows what to do with the IC infinites (which you can feel free to call chain grabs).

It has nothing to do with being lazy, the rule is fine as is and has existed for a number of years with no problem and every TO knows exactly how to interpret it. You can feel free to argue, but it won't change the fact that if you have the opponent in a grab until 300% and don't use a KO move the rule will go into effect.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

LOL Lux

It ISNT a loophole though. I do want to clarify that. Basically for the reasons AZ already posted. It's not a loophole if it what it is commonly interpreted as would fall under the 300% rule. This is widely known. How many people actually recognize that its a Walking CG and not an Infinite?

But:


I wouldn't mind seeing the rule tweaked for clarity's sake. It doesn't hurt.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

the time it took you to type that the rule has existed for years you could have tweaked the rule and been done with it as no matter what you say unless it's tweaked even if it is supposed to cover it the plain fact is that currently it does not so thus it will save countless hours of arguing if you just tweak it and don't be lazy

 

[DeLux]

I don't understand why the rule committee wouldn't want to make a rulesset that is as technically sound as possible.

The misconception that it's an infinite was because nobody sat and did the research like I have =\
Sorry, but the metagame and technical knowledge changes over time, the rulesset should as well.

There is absolutely no reason to leave it ambiguous and up to the discretion when an augmentation would clearly denote the desired meaning instead of connoting it.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I'm merely pointing out that you Lux were pretty much the only person that knew that it was not "technically" an Infinite. Because you did the work and researched it. Probably 1% of the community after reading will call it a Walking CG even if they understand the logic and reasoning behind your post.

Also if our reasoning /ruling behind something is explained that's pretty much it. If the BBR RC defines an IC chaingrab as an Infinite under the Unity Ruleset it's an Infinite. Even before that its been considered an Infinite. Because of that, why should we be obligated to re word something when the only people that would call it a Walking CG know our reasoning behind calling it an Infinite anyway.

Just something to throw out.

But, I agree with you Lux. I don't see a sound argument against editing the rule. It'd squash any un-needed arguments especially if others are going to just arbitrarily bring it up just to argue (which people will do for one reason or another...)

There are better things to discuss personally

 

[AlphaZealot]

chase: you are on the committee so feel free to make a topic in the BBR-RC about making small changes to rules like that.

Personally I don't see the need but I also wouldn't vote against it.