Tournament Ruleset Hypocrisy

[edddddie]

i think i read somewhere that japan banned marth's cg on ness/lucas....
i could be wrong.

 

[S_B]

ok, what if he waits 4 seconds?

i hope you see where i'm going with this, and i don't have to keep asking all the way down to 'what if he waits 5 frames?'

I don't think you understand where I'M going with this...

D3's infinite against these characters works so that, once grabbed, there is no escaping it unless it started VERY close to the edge of a stage or the D3 player screws it up (which won't happen in tourney level play).

In order to keep the infinite happening, though, the D3 player must follow a very specific set of moves. If the D3 player performs a different move, the infinite has ended and the other player once again has control of their character.

If it would make things simpler, require any player performing a CG to Uthrow after the 5th grab. There is absolutely no question that the player has regained control and another grab following that is their own fault for not evading and not the work of an unstoppable infinite.

You can't enforce something like this. It's not possible without completely banning characters, which won't happen. Just realize some characters have bad matchups and work around it or play different characters. Simple as that.

A number of Melee tournaments enforced a ban on wobbling somehow and these CGs are even easier to spot.

I understand not wanting to enforce this, but saying it CANNOT be enforced is illogical. The infinites aren't ambiguous. On the contrary: they're QUITE easy to spot and to count, and if the 5th grab ends with a throw anywhere but down, the other player has resumed control of their character and the chain is reset.

 

[pockyD]

you still don't understand what i'm saying, but i'm not sure i can make it any clearer

go to training mode, pick dedede, make your opponent someone you can cg, on a stage you can cg on

now grab him
dthrow
grab him again
dthrow
grab him again
dthrow
now go to the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich
grab him again


did the counter reset? can you do 5 more grabs at this point?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

We need not even show that these bans are unenforceable to explain this (though it certainly doesn't help).

These stages are banned because they aren't competitive. There are more infinites than just the DDD infinite; there are laser locks, jab locks, fireball locks, etc. The metagame simply becomes a matter of who can infinite the best, and not just in 7 out of the 703 matchups in the game.

The fact that 5 characters out of 37 have a nearly unwinnable matchup against one certain character, and 2 out of 37 have one against a different character...makes them bad characters. It's like picking Kirby against Marth in Melee.

In case this isn't clear: SMI etc are banned because of how it changes the metagame for almost every matchup. It is anathema to the notion of competition. There is no option to change to a character that doesn't lose. If someone counterpicks Marth while you play Ness, you have the option to pick 35 characters. You can also call for a double blind at the beginning of a set.

If DDD could do this to every character, he would in all likelihood be banned. Personally, if DDD cg were the ONLY infinite in the game, or it were the ONLY problem with SMI or bridge, I wouldn't ban them. But it's simply not the case.

The ban on Wobbling in Melee was a ban in name only and if anyone had a mind to put it to the test in a tourney setting it would have been apparent how ridiculously flimsy the rule was.

 

[S_B]

did the counter reset? can you do 5 more grabs at this point?

Yes, if the player is clearly free from the infinite, they'd be fair game again.

In case this isn't clear: SMI etc are banned because of how it changes the metagame for almost every matchup. It is anathema to the notion of competition. There is no option to change to a character that doesn't lose. If someone counterpicks DDD while you play Ness, you have the option to pick 35 characters. You can also call for a double blind at the beginning of a set.

We've already established that this is the case due to laser and jab locks.

At this point, we're just trying to clear up any remaining misconceptions about what I was suggesting.

 

[pockyD]

Yes, if the player is clearly free from the infinite, they'd be fair game again.

ok so, what if instead of making a sandwich, the player waits 3 extra frames, then regrabs?

did the counter reset?

 

[Wuss]

I don't get why some people are saying you can't enforce a ban, of course you can. Of course you can enforce banning the DDD chaingrab, just say that if you regrab them, you are DQ'd. Enforcing a limit is much more tricky, and probably not worth the trouble. There are way to many technicalities, and a big argument would inevitably wait every tough call that a TO had to make. Ban it, or don't, screw anything inbetween, at least that's my philosophy on the issue.

as for if it should be banned, i don't think DDD's is broken enough to warrant a ban. Like people said, don't pick those characters against him, and if you main him, well, get a new main.

 

[Nigerian Star Storm]

I don't get why some people are saying you can't enforce a ban, of course you can. Of course you can enforce banning the DDD chaingrab, just say that if you regrab them, you are DQ'd. Enforcing a limit is much more tricky, and probably not worth the trouble. There are way to many technicalities, and a big argument would inevitably wait every tough call that a TO had to make. Ban it, or don't, screw anything inbetween, at least that's my philosophy on the issue.

as for if it should be banned, i don't think DDD's is broken enough to warrant a ban. Like people said, don't pick those characters against him, and if you main him, well, get a new main.

Well....they could keep their main, but they would have to keep a secondary in cases such as that.

 

[S_B]

ok so, what if instead of making a sandwich, the player waits 3 extra frames, then regrabs?

did the counter reset?

If the character is thrown anywhere but down (in the case of D3) you most certainly got more than 3 frames of freedom in there.

 

[F.L.E.X]

I definitely agree with the op, but like its been stated, this is too trouble worthy to enforce.

The best thing to do is main a character that can work around the cg. Simple. I don't think smash turned out to be the all equal balanced game some are hoping it to be, or any other fighting game to extend. A couple of characters will always get the shaft and thats how it is, you can't change the game's programming.

I would of liked a Yoshi being able to 3 stock any of the top tiers in melee(professional skill) but thats just wishful thinking.

There will always be bad and good match ups.

 

[S_B]

Yeah, that's the real truth of the matter.

I do wonder, however, if there will be any dramatic changes to the PAL version of SSBB.

As folks may or may not know, these were the changes brought about in the PAL version of SSBM:

http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Version_differences_(SSBM)

Given that the devs saw it fit to change the game in different versions, I do wonder if anything will be changed along these lines. After all they DID do this:

"DI on Sheik's down throw has been changed so that it can no longer chain throw consistently."

Also, if this is done, I wonder how the game would handle online matches between PAL and other territories...

 

[Yuna]

I remember wrong about the Laser Lock, BTW. Falco cannot approach. He can just keep blasting you 'til you reach 999%, however and then keep on going.

I completely agree with Smash Brother: If people are going to tell Ness/Lucas players to simply "not get grabbed", then they also have to just "not get grabbed". It's blatantly hypocrisy to only rule out unfair disadvantages for some characters and not the others. While it is true that infinite chain grabs only apply to a handful of characters, it's still a pretty significant flaw that I feel should be dealt with properly. way I see it, to correctly balance the game in terms of chain-grabbing advantages, we must either allow walk-off/walled stages, or use a judge to prevent/penalize chain grabbing. The way it is now is unacceptable.

I see you're a Lucas mainer and therefore largely biased. Read my posts.

Because everyone calls it that because the end result is enough damage to kill the other player with a throw.

Not if you start near the edge, you don't. DK's isn't a 999% infinite either, IIRC. He can eventually escape, but he'll be dead by then since he'll have reached the 300%+ threshhold. DeDeDe cannot get someone from 0 to death other than DK if he starts near the edge IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong.

Hence, it's a not a guaranteed broken 0-death chaingrab on anyone but DK.

Nothing is "infinite". Even in DK's case, the D3 player would need to eat sometime or they'd die.

Yes it is. On walls. And was that a joke? If so, it utteraly failed.

See above. It's guaranteed death unless the player screws up, same as a wall "infinite".

See above.

Also, "similar" =/= the same. If you don't want people to "misunderstand" you, use the right words.

I never said in this thread that chaingrabs should be banned, only that infinites should be limited via a certain number of grabs to ensure they're not inescapable death. 5 grabs is still a sizable advantage without trivializing matchups.

Then why ban DeDeDe's chaingrab against DK, Samus, Mario and whoever?

It's the same technique. He's just using the downthrow on them. It works exceptionally well against them because they have a natural disadvantage against him. Tough ****, that's life in competitive fighting games.

Some characters have horrendous matchups against some characters.

What DeDeDe is doing is downthrowing them, regrabbing them and repeating the process. It's just a lot more effective against them than against, say, Zelda. So we're banning/limiting chaingrabbing these specific characters because... it's just too good against them?

Again, that would be like banning upsmashes against Pichu in Melee because, well, he just goshdarn dies way too easily from them!

Then these are good reasons for these stages to be banned, reasons I was previously unaware of (though laser locking requires you to land without pratfalling, something I think can be avoided by skilled players).

Laser locking requires you to land on your back (very common) and missing the tech. One missed tech = Death. It's like getting grabbed just once!

Let's not mince words. I'm sure you know exactly what I meant (especially since you referenced your biting sarcasm).

Use the right words.

I stated that it's hypocritical to ban certain stages to protect some characters from infinites and not others, and I stand by that, but given that the motivations you've given me DO branch the game into more complex territories (laser locking and jab locking) I admit that these stages could be banned for those reasons alone and preventing wall infinites is just an added bonus for everyone but the cursed 7.

I've said this already and so have others:
We ban things that are counter-competitive. It's not counter-competitive (or quite possibly, counter-competitive enough) if Marth can quasi-infinite release-grab Ness to death. That just means that Ness has a horrible matchup against Marth.

It is counter-competitive to have walk-off edges and walls because then the tiers would literally be:
God Tier:
DeDeDe
Falco
Maybe one or two other characters, those who cannot be easily infinited/quasi-infinited by Falco and D3 and are good against them or chaingrabbed off the stage by them)

Mid Tier:
Ice Climbers
Those who cannot be chaingrabbed to death against a wall by D3 or chaingrab-quasi-infinited by Falco against a wall)

Garbage Tier:
The Rest

That is counter-competitive. It forces you to play as DeDeDe and Falco if you want to stand a chance at winning because you can be winning by a lot but it only takes one missed tech or one grab from either of them

I suspect that a 5 grab limit will one day go into effect, once tournament players begin seriously mastering the ICs' infinites, and the cursed 7 might get their reprieve then (if the rule becomes applicable across the board instead of just to the ICs').

Why? Why this arbitrary number? Also, ICs infinites will not be banned because they have requires:
* Nana must be alive (kill Nana!)
* Nana must be desynched

This is why we ban stages:
We ban techniques and combos if they break the game, i.e., if they force you to play as either the character itself or one of just a few characters in order to even stand a chance of winning.

DeDeDe having a chaingrab that destroy DK and 4 others is just a natural advantage. He's just that good against them. I'm a skinny little kid. John Doe is a fat kid. We're each to fight some guy with crappy aim and a handgun. I'm a ninja, John Doe is just big and fat and strong (a few punches and his opponent will be knocked out). But since he's so fast and slow, the Guy can easily nail him with his gun. I'm fast and skinny and tiny, so I can criss-cross around him. But, hey, since John Doe's so bad against Guy, we have to ban the handgun, right?

No. It's just a natural advantage. The Cursed 7 have natural disadvantage. On any stage, they'll be at a disadvantage against a select few characters because of the way they are (programmed) and the way their opponents are (programmed). What the Cursed 7's banes have are just really effective against them.

It's not a natural advantage if it requires a special requirement like wall. Because then it's not about how the Cursed 7 and their Banes are programmed, it's about how the walls are programmed. Also, they are counter-competitive (walk-off chaingrabs, laser locks, jab locks and wall-infinites) Hence, they are banned.

DeDeDe's chaingrabs and Marth's, Pokémon Trainer's and Yoshi's grab releases are not game-breaking. All they do is limit the Competitive viability of the Cursed 7. The Cursed 7 can still win... just not against them. The rest of the games' characters can, however. D3, Marth, PT and Yoshi are probably High (or Top if there's a God Tier), Mid and Bottom (below Low) respectively, despite these "unfair advantages" against the Cursed 7.

You can beat them with a huge number of characters (especially Yoshi). Every single character in the game has a thouroughly unfair advantage against Yoshi: Meteor Smashes and simple edge-guarding because he lacks a real 3rd jump. DeDeDe is very slow and since he's a heavy-weight and huge, he's easily juggled (he's susceptible to the "Ken Combo"). Also, his recovery, not so good.

These "unfair advantages" do not allow them to win entire tournaments without anyone standing a chance of beating them. They just allow them to thoroughly beat the Cursed 7. Tough ****, Cursed 7.

Allowing walled stages and walk-off stages would allow a God Tier way above everyone else to win every single tournament without anyone standing even a chance and would literally break the game. This is why we ban them and this is why we do not ban or limit "unfair advantage" chaingrabs/grab releases.

Putting that aside, this all really depends on whether or not we want tournaments to be won by people who take advantage of all game imbalances or win using the so-called scrub mentality.

Tournaments are always about people winning taking advantage of the game's imbalances. No game is perfectly balanced. And even if you're playing as Captain Falcon, if you're playing to win, you'll be using the best stuff he has, not the worst of it. It's just that if I'm playing as Snake, the best stuff I have is far superior to the best stuff Captain Falcon has.

And people can never win using the scrub mentality because. Read up on the definition of a scrub. A scrub will never win a large tournament attended by at least a handful of skilled players.

how did playing doc solve your sheik problem?

Because Doc vs. Sheik is a pretty even matchup and while Sheik can chaingrab Link, she cannot chaingrab Doc (IIRC), but Doc can chaingrab Sheik?

A. Most matches can be easily videotaped off screen and many are anyways. The tape could be checked.

No they're not. A vast majority of matches are not videotaped. Because how many TVs are there at tournaments with 50 or more attendants? More than 8, I'd presume. Name 5 tournaments that's had more than 8 TVs recording.

B. If the TO was going to enforce the rule, they should know they'd need judges watching each match anyway.

The final grab needs to be an Fthrow or an up throw.

What if the Bthrow or Dthrow would be situationally much better?

In any case, I expect this whole thing will get a new coat of logic paint once we have players start mastering the ICs' infinite and tearing up tournies with it. I've actually heard anecdotes from a few players on this site about how they were destroyed at a tourney by the IC infinite so that day may come sooner than we think.

You mean Wobbling in Melee? Banned and then unbanned? Oh yeah, we've never had to deal with this before! No, no.

Ah well. Nothing else for me to say on the subject.

Read above and reply. If you cannot refute it, I'll join the "Limit the Chaingrabs!"-bandwagon.

Marth would probably opt to smash after the 5th release.

What if he re-grabs them and then knocks them around for a little more damage and then prepares to throw but Ness wiggles out? DQ?

That's great, but it doesn't make the stories of players losing to IC infinites any less valid, especially since we've established that it takes some time to master and most seem to agree that the tactic hasn't really been explored to its fullest potential yet.

How about those players just sucking. ICs aren't God Tier or even Top Tier in Brawl. There are many reasons for this. What is there to explore about their infinites, anyway? Start an infinite, do the infinite, KO. Voila.

However, even with it, ICs cannot win against everyone and destroy everything in their path. We will only ban their various CGs and infinites if they're literally destroying the tournament scene, as in you have to either play as one of maybe 2 characters who do not get wrecked by them or as ICs themselves (as ICs cannot chaingrab or infinite themselves because there's two of them). So even if ICs start winning tournaments, it won't be banned unless they're winning a way which makes it virtually impossible to win against them.

No need: by being vulnerable to infinites, they're basically banned already because no one will play them competitively. It doesn't even make sense to have them as a second main because putting in months of practice with a character who can be destroyed by a single grab from another character is a logical fallacy.

They're not banned. This is in no way a ban or even similar to banning. This is sucking in certain matchups.

And FYI, if someone figured out a standing infinite grab on Snake tomorrow, I'm quite certain action would be taken to limit it.

No, it would not. Your opinion = Fact. Your illogical thinking, assumptions and guess-work about how the Competitive Smash Scene works = How the Competitive Smash Scene works.

Some of us have been around for up to 5 years and more. How long have you been around (no, really, I can't remember. Maybe you're even a part of the Competitive Smash scene)?

If they're U, F or Bthrown, they're free because they can't be regrabbed in the air, last I checked.

That's the easiest way I can think of to ensure the chain has been broken. Of course, an individual TO may choose another way completely to determine this.

If we limit them to 5, what if Marth does 5 grab-releases, then waits for Ness to be able to escape it and then does it again? And keeps on doing it? If you leave your opponent with enough of a frame-window to escape, you cannot be DQ:ed. So what if Marth waits 1 frame past the frame Ness can get out of it if he's frame-perfect?

We need not even show that these bans are unenforceable to explain this (though it certainly doesn't help).

These stages are banned because they aren't competitive. There are more infinites than just the DDD infinite; there are laser locks, jab locks, fireball locks, etc. The metagame simply becomes a matter of who can infinite the best, and not just in 7 out of the 703 matchups in the game.

Quoted for the truth.

There are plenty of matchups in the game that are completely unfair and unwinnable unless the player using the character with the unfair advantage screws up repeatedly and quite a lot (assuming both players are high level players of roughly the same skill level). Sure, they do come from quasi-infinites or infinites from a single grab, but they're still largely unfair.

These are just 7 really unfair matchups. Tough luck, Cursed 7. Melee Pichu feels for you.

D3's infinite against these characters works so that, once grabbed, there is no escaping it unless it started VERY close to the edge of a stage or the D3 player screws it up (which won't happen in tourney level play).

Captain Falcon loses to Snake on every stage. Badly. I guess we should ban Snake.

Also, if this is done, I wonder how the game would handle online matches between PAL and other territories...

Someone told me today it doesn't. They could very well be wrong, though. But it would only be logical if vast changes were made to how the game works unless a patch is released for the NTSC versions.

 

[Rapid_Assassin]

Until I start seeing tournaments absolutely dominated by Ice climbers players, I see no reason to ban the chaingrabs. But last time I checked, there was only one high placing Ice climbers in my region, and most of the rest played Snake.

So you say that you can only do 5 chaingrabs at a time? I'm going to do 5, jab you, then do another 5. Or if you put a time limit on, say only 2 minutes of chaingrabbing. I'll chaingrab you for 1 minute 59 seconds if that's the next best strategy.

The Ness/lucas thing is also kind of dumb. I want special benefits for my character too. How's this sound? If you don't edgehog me, I won't grab release infinite you. Sound like a deal? You can't make arbitrary rules like this, since worse combos happened in both Melee and 64. If you do make arbitrary rules, there'll still be a high, mid, and low tier anyway.

 

[Yuna]

BTW, using the "You can get tons of damage in from an inscapable combo"-argument, we must ban Zamus' Dsmash chain as well since it can chain some characters from 0 or relatively 0-ish to 150% or higher and there's literally nothing they can do to escape it except hope Zamus screws up!

Since the Dsmash stuns you and keeps you in place, once you reach a high enough % for you to get KO:ed, Zamus will hit you with a charged Fsmash for a KO.

 

[dj_pwn1423]

Until I start seeing tournaments absolutely dominated by Ice climbers players, I see no reason to ban the chaingrabs. But last time I checked, there was only one high placing Ice climbers in my region, and most of the rest played Snake.

So you say that you can only do 5 chaingrabs at a time? I'm going to do 5, jab you, then do another 5. Or if you put a time limit on, say only 2 minutes of chaingrabbing. I'll chaingrab you for 1 minute 59 seconds if that's the next best strategy.

The Ness/lucas thing is also kind of dumb. I want special benefits for my character too. How's this sound? If you don't edgehog me, I won't grab release infinite you. Sound like a deal? You can't make arbitrary rules like this, since worse combos happened in both Melee and 64. If you do make arbitrary rules, there'll still be a high, mid, and low tier anyway.

lol I wish people would let me actually aproach with ganon.

 

[old king coal]

sorry about the double post (below)....

 

[old king coal]

Laser locking requires you to land on your back (very common) and missing the tech. One missed tech = Death. It's like getting grabbed just once!

really wrong there. laser locking does about %40 on a regular stage before they can escape at the edge. all levels with walls/walk of edges are banned anyway, so this isn't a problem. it also rarely happens in a game. check the falco boards. no-body(including pros like sethlon) laser locks because it is very situational to set up. and you cannot say a missed tech is like getting grabbed because teching is a basic skill. grabs will happen no matter what. also, falco's laser lock can be done against all characters, and thus is equally balanced. it doesn't destroy any character, or give falco an unfair advantage. infinites on ness/lucas do destroy those characters. to ban them wouldn't be bad marth mains: marth is already a better character and matches up well against ness and lucas.

Yuna, you must admit that there is a difference between other infinites and the one on ness/lucas. so far, your opinions on this thread have confirmed my opinion of you. hopefully you will change my mind.... but i doubt it. you will probably give your invalid points and call me a scrub.....

 

[Yuna]

really wrong there. laser locking does about %40 on a regular stage before they can escape at the edge. all levels with walls/walk of edges are banned anyway, so this isn't a problem. it also rarely happens in a game. check the falco boards.

You must've missed the part where I said that we banned walls and walk-off stages in part because of laser-locking.

The OP is whining about the banning of these stages but not DeDeDe's chaingrab. I'm saying "Well, that's because that's not the only reason why we banned them". When I said "Laser-locking = 1 stock", I meant on a walk-off edge stage.

no-body(including pros like sethlon) laser locks because it is very situational to set up.

If you can do it, then you should do it. A lot of things are situational, but when you nail them, you can get a stock (or in Laser Locking's case 999%) off. So it's important to know how to do it.

and you cannot say a missed tech is like getting grabbed because teching is a basic skill.

It's still one single mistake.

grabs will happen no matter what.

Not if you roll/spotddoge the grab.

also, falco's laser lock can be done against all characters, and thus is equally balanced.

It's less balanced if it cannot be done on anyone since that means Falco can "own" anyone with it. DeDeDe can only "own" 5 characters. What's less balanced? A game where 5 characters are garbage against a single character or a game where 35 characters (including the character itself) are?

it doesn't destroy any character, or give falco an unfair advantage. infinites on ness/lucas do destroy those characters. to ban them wouldn't be bad marth mains: marth is already a better character and matches up well against ness and lucas.

Miss a tech, die. Also, 10 or so characters have jab-locking, which accomplishes the same goal. Falco also has a chaingrab that takes you across the stage, that will eventually kill you off a walk-off edge as well. These will destroy all others.

So we should only ban "gay" stuff if the character who has them are already good without them? Game & Watch had a pretty broken chaingrab on fastfallers in Melee, but, hey, he's pretty bad overall, so let's let him keep that chaingrab.

No, that's bad logic. Also, read the one gazillion posts in this thread about why things are banned. "Unfair advantage" is not reason enough. Fighting games are naturally unbalanced. We do not ban things to make them more balance, we ban them if they break the game.

Yuna, you must admit that there is a difference between other infinites and the one on ness/lucas. so far, your opinions on this thread have confirmed my opinion of you. hopefully you will change my mind.... but i doubt it. you will probably give your invalid points and call me a scrub.....

This post pretty much tells me you have no idea what Competitive gaming is about and why we ban things in Competitive gaming. If you have actually read my posts on why things are banned in Competitive gaming and why things aren't, then you're beyond help if you still cannot understand why we ban Walk-offs and Walls but not DeDeDe's chaingrab.

 

[Cbone]

About wobbling, it was not always banned. The tournament host could decide to ban or un-ban it as they saw fit. Maybe there just wasn't many ice climbers in my area, but when it was not banned people typically did not care very much, even if they got wobbled. In order for something like that to be banned by the entire community, it really needs to be broken.

Anyways i also wanted to note from the first post that Marth was always high/top tier. Sure new metagame helped, but a fast character with a long sword will always be top.

I also generally agree with Yuna, so i will no reiterate all of his points.

 

[old king coal]

You must've missed the part where I said that we banned walls and walk-off stages in part because of laser-locking.

Yes i know, but even without laser locks there were many reasons to ban these stages. however, now that they cannot be abused there is no reason to compare them to the infinite on ness/lucas. In fact, by comparing them you are only confirming my point. You said that part of the reason these stages were banned was because of falco's laser lock. You compared similarities between something you deemed broken and to the infinite on lucas/ness, which you still believe is not unfair.

The OP is whining about the banning of these stages but not DeDeDe's chaingrab. I'm saying "Well, that's because that's not the only reason why we banned them". When I said "Laser-locking = 1 stock", I meant on a walk-off edge stage

fair enough, but my post refered to marth's infinite on ness/lucas, not D3's chaingrab. I agree that DDD's chaingrab should not be banned. there is a difference between DeDeDe's and marths. At some point you must draw the line, and i believe that banning marths infinite is the right thing to do. getting rid of it will not damage marth as a character, like banning D3's would. all it would do is correct a unfortunate glitch which makes 2 characters horrible at tournament level. (counterpick marth maybe...)

If you can do it, then you should do it. A lot of things are situational, but when you nail them, you can get a stock (or in Laser Locking's case 999%) off. So it's important to know how to do it.

true...and i do know how to do it, but my argument is about the infinite against marth/lucas. if marth could do that to every character then it would be banned. I cannot think of one good reason why it should be legal.

It's still one single mistake.

yes it is, but it happens so often that it is unfair to say "dont get grabbed". the best players in the world get grabbed. As a falco main, if my opponent makes a mistake it ussualy gets them chaingrabbed or a nice f-smash. it does not get them 0-death. please feel free to make an ice-climbers comparison because that is a different story, which i am happy to argue about

Not if you roll/spotddoge the grab.

i know how you avoid a grab...*sigh* i am just saying that it is rare to go through a match without getting grabbed. if i used your logic i could say that you should not be hit once for the entire match.

Miss a tech, die. Also, 10 or so characters have jab-locking, which accomplishes the same goal. Falco also has a chaingrab that takes you across the stage, that will eventually kill you off a walk-off edge as well. These will destroy all others.

So we should only ban "gay" stuff if the character who has them are already good without them? Game & Watch had a pretty broken chaingrab on fastfallers in Melee, but, hey, he's pretty bad overall, so let's let him keep that chaingrab.

No, that's bad logic. Also, read the one gazillion posts in this thread about why things are banned. "Unfair advantage" is not reason enough. Fighting games are naturally unbalanced. We do not ban things to make them more balance, we ban them if they break the game.

why do you think i support broken maps? all i am saying is that the infinite on ness/lucas should be banned. please give me one good reason why it should not. i would like to hear your opinion

This post pretty much tells me you have no idea what Competitive gaming is about and why we ban things in Competitive gaming. If you have actually read my posts on why things are banned in Competitive gaming and why things aren't, then you're beyond help if you still cannot understand why we ban Walk-offs and Walls but not DeDeDe's chaingrab.

i have read your post and i agree with most of what you say. i understand and agree why you have banned Walk-offs and Walls but not DeDeDe's chaingrab. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE INFINITE ON NESS/LUCAS.

Yuna, i hope that you look at this post, and if you do, you realise that i am not trying to have an "attack" on you in any way. i just want to hear your opinions and your justifications on them

 

[Yuna]

true...and i do know how to do it, but my argument is about the infinite against marth/lucas. if marth could do that to every character then it would be banned. I cannot think of one good reason why it should be legal.

Like I've been saying, if Marth could do this to every character (or even a huge amount of characters), then, yes, it'd be banned.

But the fact is that he can't. It's not game-breaking. It doesn't force you to play as Marth or one of 3 or so characters he can't destroy with this, hence, it's not game-breaking. It just sucks to be Ness. Hence, it's not banned.

We do not ban things if they gimp a few characters. We ban them if they break the game. I've said this one bazillion times now. If you still can't get it through your head, then I give up.

 

[lain]

People always think Ice Climbers are so broken with their chaingrabs. But try learning to do it perfectly and pulling it off consistently and learning the timing and dealing with the pressure and...

EVEN GETTING A GRAB.

yes, it's true. if you're not a complete ******, it is HARD to get grabbed.

D3 chaingrabbing isn't a big deal, yadda yadda yadda

 

[Beeble]

Regading the marth/ness grab release, doesn't marth have to move forward to regrab (If not disregard the rest of this post)?

If so, doesn't that mean you will hit a ledge where the infinate will cease to be an infinate and merely be labeled a chain throw?

 

[Yuna]

Regading the marth/ness grab release, doesn't marth have to move forward to regrab (If not disregard the rest of this post)?

If so, doesn't that mean you will hit a ledge where the infinate will cease to be an infinate and merely be labeled a chain throw?

Yes he does and yes it will.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Good god, this thread is getting TL;DR so bad. Why can't anyone here just accept Yuna's superior line of logic and leave it at that for now?

 

[CR4SH]

Sakurai didn't sit down and have beta-testers come up with the best ways to play every character and then design the game around it. He just designed the game and leaves everything up to us.

lolwut? are you just joking here? OF COURSE sakurai had beta testers sit down and play the characters and designed the game to balance their playstyles. WTF are you talking about?

 

[King-Yoshi]

Maybe just make it so they can't be KOed by a chain grab?

 

[Yuna]

lolwut? are you just joking here? OF COURSE sakurai had beta testers sit down and play the characters and designed the game to balance their playstyles. WTF are you talking about?

He didn't sit down and have the beta-testers tell him what should be in the game. He made the game and then had the beta-testers go at it and then he adjusted a few things.

It's painfully obvious however that both Sakurai and the beta-testers were incompetent because of the sheer amount of bovine manure still left in the game. Brawl is one of the biggest glitch-fests I've ever seen. They saw what set knockback throws did to Melee, yet they gave us a bunch of new ones and look at what it gave us. Surprise, surprise, chaingrabs.

Heck, just take a look at Snake's hitboxes. F-tilt someone from afar, pause the game and tell me that's well-betatested. Sakurai obviously has a very loose grasp on balance. Imagine Melee Sheik. Imagine Melee Sheik with an even better Upair than her NTSC-version. Now give her exploding needles. That's what the beta version of Melee was like.

They beta-tested her and nerfed her. Obviously, no one bothered to try dthrowing people into a grab. It took us players to figure it out. The beta testers Sakurai employed for Melee and Brawl were highly incompetent.

 

[JrdnS]

beta testers are obviously not good at smash.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

lolwut? are you just joking here? OF COURSE sakurai had beta testers sit down and play the characters and designed the game to balance their playstyles. WTF are you talking about?

Okay, if this post was just a joke or something, ignore this, but, Sakurai DOES NOT care about the balance of the game in any way whatsoever, it really makes no difference to him. Why would it? Hours of extensive balance testing don't help sell games like Super Smash Bros, the majority of smash players just pick it up to mash B for a few weeks and then rush over to the next bright shiny game in line.

 

[Hughalicous]

Putting a limit on the number of grabs allowed in a row is a good idea, if you can enforce it well. Problem is, once they do the 5 throws and finish with an attack, they just have to land another grab on them, and then 5 more throws. You need to find a way to police this sort of thing, or else you are just interrupting the chain grab with an attack or a different throw once every 5 grabs.

 

[Pantsmann]

i think the hardest thing about limiting the 5 grabs thing would be actually enforcing 5 grabs. you need a judge at every game, then you'd have disputes about whether it really was 5 grabs or if it was just 4 grabs, or if you'll let 6 grabs slip. wobbling is just so clear cut compared to this 5 grabs business because it's really obvious when somebody is wobbling, while it's not obvious is somebody does 6 grabs instead of 5.

 

[lethminite]

in this thread, there seems to be a lot of people skipping over the main part of each others arguments (in a sense)
it could be me thats completely wrong, but here is how I see this thread, hopefully i'm not an idiot and by summarizing the thread it can be settled.


OP thinks that it's unfair that walk off stages are banned just to stop 1/2 the chaingrabs, which seems to him to change the tier list. he believes that the tournament rules should not decide the tier list, that game mechanics should instead.

tournament players, either miss his point, or ignore it, and see it as a "my main sucks, fix it" thread, which it is in a way, it's more "his main sucks, but you fixed it, so either fix mine too, or unfix his"

the debate goes on, and it comes out, that snake et al getting fixed (having the stages with CGs on him banned) was not to stop snake et al from being CGed, but a more fundamental thing of stopping the risk-reward getting so extreme that one slip up kills you.

tournament players see the "1 slip and you die" as bad, but unavoidable for match ups like marth v ness, since it's avoidable, being fair would force every one too suffer that, which just ends up with a broken game, thus they opt to be unfair, and keep the game healthy for every one else, and most match ups.

OP and/or his supporters see "1 slip and you die" as only bad if it's uneven, it's hypocritical to only have some suffer it, and other avoid it.


my view on the thread is:
it is hypocritical, but it's necessary. sucks to be those 7, but it's no different then that it sucks to be falcon.
there should be no argument as long as walk off stages are banned for reasons other then stopping CGs on other members (since some can avoid it anyway). Since it's been pointed out that playing on the edge of a walk off edge takes the risk and reward to such extremes, that they would be banned for that reason alone, i don't see how you can keep arguing to unban walk-offs

i'm AUS, so i don't know exactly how brawl tournaments are run yet, but if there isn't a way to use a 2nd main against marth, when you are ness, and the like, it should be added.
there has to be a way to do it, with out it being uncompetitive.
you would still be able use you main for every other match up


again, sorry if i miss interpreted what every one is saying. or if none of what i said is relevant.

EDIT: i have judged at MTG tournaments, in the case of both players claiming contradictory stories we ask each to explain what happened, and use the physical game state to work out which one is telling the truth.
but that would be next to impossible with brawl, a % and a location for each player would not be enough to go on, as to if 4 or 6 grabs were used, it would be way way way too hard to enforce.

 

[Patsie]

Good thread so far.

I like your argument so far, Smash Brother, but why would you set the infinite to 5 grabs? I understand that you'd rather leave it up to TOs to set the actual limit, but it seems to me like you're making the ruleset arbitrary when you don't have to. Why couldn't it be something like a DDD player can't grab those 5 characters in the air (where they are always grabbed during the infinite)? Why couldn't you limit the ICG so that you can't follow up a grab combo with a grab from Nana (not in general, just the way the ICG is performed)? It seems like that way people wouldn't be counting the number of times that they're being throwed, and there is an easily definable limit that can't be breached.

I also had a lot more respect for a few of the mods/directors/etc, but I don't think these one-sentence blanket responses that don't engage anything posted thus far help anything. The sarcasm has been condescending at best, and at the very least it's not funny. Shouldn't you guys, of all people, understand that not posting anything at all is preferable than posting useless garbage?

 

[Grunt]

I'd opt for a 5 grab maximum rule. It's easy to enforce, it still racks up a TON of damage with a single grab to start it, yet it doesn't equate the loss of a stock with a single grab..

didn't Hylian (or someone, i 4get) figure out how to 0-death with Icies in just 3 grabs?

 

[Dastrn]

You can simply not play as characters who can get infinited when facing the few characters who can truly infinite you. You cannot just switch characters to prevent this on stages with walk-off stages where chaingrabs will result in death or walled stages where a single jab or laser can lead to an infinite.

Solution as Lucas and Ness when fighting Marth: Switch character
Solution when fighting DeDeDe or Falco on a stage with a walk-off edge: None, you get grabbed, you die most of the time

We only ban something when it's universally broken. A chaingrab/infinite that only works against certain characters just makes those characters unplayable against the character(s) in question. As such, it does not need to be banned. One that works on everyone is broken if it makes the character way too good ("Play as them or lose!") and thus, the technique is banned. If it's only possible on certain stages, then those stages will be banned.

what he said.

 

[Dastrn]

OK.

I'm a tournament organizer. My last tournament had 44 players and 10 TV's. There was one camera in the room. I had 2 people helping me keep track of matches and inputting data into TIO, and letting people know who they played next.

Overswarm recorded about half of his matches on his camera, which was the only one there, and nothing else was recorded at all.

If someone walked up to me and said "He just grabbed me 6 times, so I win." and the opponent said, "no, it was 5." How on earth am I supposed to sort that out? Always believe the person who isn't playing DDD? Always believe DDD? DQ them both?

What if the DDD player says "yeah it was 6, because I let you free for 3 frames after the 4th one, and you were just too slow to notice." He technically worked two different chaingrabs, but they were just really close to one another.

Who's going to be able to tell the difference?

If I say "ok, replay the match, since you don't agree" then that means that anyone playing against DDD can play aggressive, and if they start losing, claim a chain-grab and get a free reset.

If I say "I believe one of you and not the other one" then that guy's whole crew will stop coming to my tournament because I called them liars.

If I DQ them both, then you can bring your friend who doesn't care about smash to come along and pay $10 to enter just to try to get that one DDD DQ'ed so that you don't have to face him.

FACT: We can't watch every match.
FACT: Not every match is recorded.
FACT: There's no way to tell if you were let free for 1 frame and then grabbed again.
FACT: This sort of ban is absolutely unenforceable.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that this sort of ban is enforceable. I know because I organize tournaments. You don't, because you never have.

 

[petrie911]

It's still not that hard to enforce. For starters, you only need someone watching matches with D3 vs DK, Mario, Luigi, Samus, or Bowser; Marth vs Ness or Lucas; and Pokemon Trainer vs Ness. Also those Yoshi ones, I suppose. The thing is, though, these matches will rarely, if ever, come up. Not many people are going to be using Mario, Samus, Bowser, Ness, or Yoshi because they're not all that good anyways. Lucas will come up a bit more often, and DK vs D3 will probably be the most common. But still, you don't need to be watching all the TVs. All you need is for one of the players in that matchup, should it come up, call over a judge. And to reiterate, you won't need many judges because these matchups aren't very common.

As for the question of when a person counts as free, he can be considered free when he performs an action other than shielding or moving, or after 1 second has passed in case he actually decides to only shield for that duration. The other player is, of course, free to do any other action than grabbing during this period. If the CG'd player gets grabbed after that, it is in fact his own fault, as he clearly had the ability to avoid it at that point.

Should it be banned? I'm not sure, but I'm just pointing out that it's not as horribly infeasible as some seem to think.

 

[Yuna]

lethminite , no. We've specified why the OP is wrong. Not entirely wrong, but it's hardly about "protecting the tierlist". It's about the fact that walk-offs and walls limit the number of playable characters to, like, 4 or something.

 

[pockyD]

It's still not that hard to enforce. For starters, you only need someone watching matches with D3 vs DK, Mario, Luigi, Samus, or Bowser; Marth vs Ness or Lucas; and Pokemon Trainer vs Ness. Also those Yoshi ones, I suppose. The thing is, though, these matches will rarely, if ever, come up. Not many people are going to be using Mario, Samus, Bowser, Ness, or Yoshi because they're not all that good anyways. Lucas will come up a bit more often, and DK vs D3 will probably be the most common. But still, you don't need to be watching all the TVs. All you need is for one of the players in that matchup, should it come up, call over a judge. And to reiterate, you won't need many judges because these matchups aren't very common.

i'm pretty sure that dedede is a VERY trendy counterpick on walled stages; you're going to have to have an official watching a lot of game2/3s

As for the question of when a person counts as free, he can be considered free when he performs an action other than shielding or moving, or after 1 second has passed in case he actually decides to only shield for that duration. The other player is, of course, free to do any other action than grabbing during this period. If the CG'd player gets grabbed after that, it is in fact his own fault, as he clearly had the ability to avoid it at that point.

are your judges going to have stopwatches too to make sure 1 second has passed? are you going to be able to tell if ddd grabbed the guy during the 2nd frame of his jump?