Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Yeah, I addressed a lot of other things that would need to be banned as well in the other thread.I already knew who you were TGM (I've even played you at a tournament). I posted in here before I went and saw your post in the Houston Thread. If you ban the IC chain grab then you better be prepared to ban a lot more stuff than just one chain grab for tournaments. Because there are a lot more "glitches or ******** poop" than just this Chain grab.
Do you not understand smash at all? The entire game is based around gimping, and killing at the lowest %'s.
You don't even have your facts straight, yet you go and try to ban things?
Hey look, another thing you are wrong about! 32 of the characters in this game can do this to ness/lucas. Some have to move while doing it, but generally its an infinite with almost anyone. So you are saying ness and lucas should just be completely abandoned and never used in tournaments? Just because they are not as popular? That's horrible.
Um, I addressed this above. You are wrong.
Really? So does that mean I am only allowed to grab 3 times the entire match? Can I only grab them once? Do I have to do two attacks again before I can grab? 3? I am pretty sure if I throw them, then I fair them with nana, I just did a grab, and then an attack. I am still not allowed to grab? What if I do Throw, to fair, to iceblock? 2 attacks. Can I grab after that? What about, throw to fair to block lock to jab to grab? Is that considered a chaingrab?
See above
That has NEVER Happened. In melee, Wobbling was legal at almost every large scale tournament, and it didn't effect the outcome one bit. The only two good IC's were Wobbles and Chu, and they bothed placed the same when wobbling was banned and when it wasn't. Random scrubs will NEVER beat pros. THIS TACTIC IS NOT BROKEN AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT BEING SO. You have ZERO proof that this will happen. It didn't happen in melee, that's for sure.
There was never a single tournament that was won by wobbling. People thought wobbles only beat caveman at evo south because of wobbling, but he also beat caveman when wobbling was banned. In several tournaments. He still lost to Xelic, even WITH wobbling. So lets see: Wobbles is allowed to wobble and he beats caveman and loses to Xelic. When he isn't allowed to wobble what happens? He beats caveman and loses to Xelic. The exact same thing. IT IS NOT GAMEBREAKING AND HAS NEVER AFFECTED TOURNAMENT RESULTS.
I don't have to compare it. The points addressed above are solid.
I don't like it, and I won't attend tournaments that support banning this, no matter where they are. Be open to change. It seems like you are just banning this because you don't understand it, or how to get around it. But it is by no means broken, and people are not going to start winning tournaments because of it.
I know.
It's easy to Muti Quote. Just quote a post, and put [ Quote ] at the start of what you want to quote and [ / Quote ] at the end of it. Without the spaces of course.
Again, seeing something means nothing. I have seen "Time and time again" the dedede 0-death with chaingrabs and edgeguarding. So what?
Um, yes I am saying that. PT and Marth can do it to 999%. And other characters can do it as well.
Right, 2 straight months of practice, and I have still never pulled it off 0-death in tournament. Really ****ing broken. Fox in melee could infinite characters. Why wasn't that banned? IC could 0-death chaingrab in melee WITHOUT wobbling, those were never banned. Marth could 0-death chaingrab spacies on FD. Throwing falcon off the stage ment an almost 100% chance that his stock was going from ANY %. Many other characters in brawl have infinites, and 0-death combos...why are you not banning those? Because you are ignorant of them.
Do you even want brawl to be competitive? PLAY TO ****ING WIN. It's a tournament. For money. You don't ban things just because you think they are a little "Unfair". You ban things because they dominate the meta-game to the point where it is everything vs that tactic. That has not happened, and will never happen with IC's. If someone is good enough to win a tournament, they should be good enough to in all of their match-ups. This game is not balanced, get over it.
Right, and did Dv8, jake, or aarron win those tournaments? Probably not, because it wasn't a broken technique. If the other person couldn't get around it, then it's their fault for losing. They did not just start the game and automatically lose because the other play chose IC's.
Weaker players will never win anything, so that is a stupid arguement. You only ban something if it largely impacts the META GAME. Not some average players with no chance of winning due to the large amount of overall skill at tournaments.
Why? Because you say so? I have been laserlocked several times. And died from it. M2K has a thread on the falco boards about 4 easy ways to get laserlocks. Everyone made a HUGE deal out of this when it was discovered, but no one banned it, because it's stupid to ban something without testing how it affects tournament results. Now it's not a big deal.
I really don't think you do. You said I cannot grab more then 3 times in a row right? Guess what? I can still infinite. By 3 different methods. 1 grab still by your theory means a stock lost. And there is no practical way you could ban these without banning climbers alltogether, because they invovle footstools, squalls, grabs, ice blocks, reverse block from footstools...The ONLY way you are going to stop me from doing these is if you tell me exactly what I can't do. If you say I can't grab more then 3 times in a row, fine, but I can still infinite. If you say I can't do any infinites, you are going to need to define them, because I can explain ways to get out of them and I can just use 100% damage combos that can be escaped after 100% due to DI, which are not infinites.
I get you perfectly fine. You don't understand anything about IC's, you are ignorant in almost every point you make, you don't cater to the community, but rather your own personal opinions(or the fact that T-rex and 3000 were so pissed about being chaingrabbed by sethlon at planet zero, which probably started all of this in the first place)
It's because I make good solid points that make sense. TGM won't listen to any of them and is acting very immaturely towards my reasonings.
No, I know. I'm completely with you. I used to be in the "holy beans this will break brawl" until I educated myself by reading threads in the IC subforums, and I think a lot of the hate the ICs are getting is because people don't know enough about it and don't bother to learn. They just know the ICs can theoretically 0-death just about every character on the roster and are screaming bloody murder, as masses do.
Very discriminatory to a lot of the asian players; a lot of them are not that many pixels tall.
This is just an ad-hominem. He was talking about gimping matches. In other words, he was complaining that matches would lose their enjoyability if the IC CG was allowed. His complaint isn't relevant to the Melee meta-game in the sense that his use of the word "gimp" has a different definition than the use of the word "gimp" you were trying to address his argument with.
The truth value of his statement on Ice Climbers isn't related to the truth value of his statements on Falco, DeDeDe and Pikachu. In other words, addressing his knowledge of some arbitrary aspect of the game (even if he's referenced it before as an example) doesn't address the truth value of his statements on the Ice Climbers' chain grabs.
Right, but being able to infinite 5 characters doesn't justify banning that character's infinite. 5 characters is about 1/8 of the game's roster, or 12.5%. But being able to infinite all of the characters is quite a bit more questionable.
Obviously, your point that 3 being the upper bound on the number of repeated grabs the ICs can perform is well formed. Sadly, this only says that the upper bound should be raised from 3 to a high number, not necessarily to infinity. In other words, it may make sense to change the upper bound corresponding to the number of repeated grabs ICs can do to an integer that allows you to do 35%-50%, depending on the weight of the character.
Again, you're confusing the two chain grabs. They're not equivalent. While D3's CG forces him forward, forcing him to edge-guard, the ICs can CG "in place," such that you don't ever need to stop.
This is another example of you condescending in an attempt to look superior to your opponent, instead of simply addressing his points.
Isn't this just a way of not getting grabbed?
Right, but if we're in a set of 3 matches, the random stages aren't expected to move. This equates to me losing the first match, winning the second, and losing the third.
Hey look, another time you've condescended to TGM for no reason!
Honestly, I don't know where to begin with this. It's a giant non-sequitur.
You're not making a lot of sense here. "People will main ICs to infinite every character" isn't equivalent to "people are maining ICs to infinite every character." In other words, you're saying that, because what is expected to happen hasn't yet happened (in a very short period of time, I might add), that the foundation of our expectation must be flawed. That would be the case if we waited for a lengthy period of time, say one or two years, and found that no one played ICs to try and infinite every character. But waiting fewer than 6 months and then claiming the fallaciousness of the foundation our predictions as a result of an unexpected result is stupid.
I addressed this above. You are wrong.
I think it should be taken literally. He specified "you can't do more than 3 grabs in a row." Since throw-throw-throw-attack-throw isn't "more than 3 grabs in a row," it's legal.
See above.
I don't think he made a statement about it happening. I think he said something about its ability to happen.
Are we even discussing Wobbling? Melee is quite a bit deeper and allows quite a bit more fluidity of character movement than Brawl does. Your analogy doesn't necessarily hold.
Right, except for the random ad-hominems and non-sequiturs, right?
It seems like you're not really relating this conclusion to any arguments Houston has made against you. No one cares if you go to their tournaments or not, as this doesn't address the "broken-ness" of the IC CG.
It really doesn't seem like you do. It seems like you love to use the little well-poisoning statements right before you begin your counter-arguments.
I have no idea what most of those are, but quite a few "locks" aren't as versatile as IC's CG, as they can't be used on most stages against most characters.
im just rooting 4 hylian. seriously man, just pick dedede if the guy picks samus, since apparently dededes CG isnt ban but ICs (which actually takes practice) is
So? Someone has to fill the bottom tier.
Hey! "Ad hominem!"
Ok, let me explain what an argumentum ad hominem is. There's a proposition, see? Let's call it P. Now A, an average guy, is claiming P. Now B, is arguing that P is false solely because B doesn't like something about A, or finds something objectionable about A as a person. In other words, B claims that P is false because B doesn't like A.
"Truth value?" Are you serious? And yes, addressing "some arbitrary aspect of the game" is "related to the truth value of his statements on Falco, DeDeDe and Pikachu" (****, what clunky prose). A thorough knowledge of the game is necessary to be able to fairly ban things. You can't just ban things you don't like without comparing them to every other aspect of the game. You can't say something is broken without having your facts straight. It's just... fallacious, to use a word you like.
Thanks for doing that math. Showing both the fraction and the % really make your point all the more believable. I'll not touch this too much, because it's a fair argument, although I personally believe that infinitely grabbing 5 characters as easily as Dedede is able to is pretty weak. Hasn't proven to be game-breaking yet, though. Just like the ICs' CG.
"Upper bound", "integer": more clunky word choices that just detract from the readability of your post - the opposite effect of what was intended, I imagine. Tip: unless you normally use 'em, trying to throw in big words and highfalutin turns of phrase usually makes you sound awkward, especially when your mastery of syntax ain't too hot.
My personal favorite. Equivocate does not at all mean what you think it means. It's not even transitive.
No he's not.
But he said the ICs CAN do a CG like Dedede's, but that it's banned. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I know you address this next:
Ughh. What an ugly sentence.
Hey, you can paraphrase. Unnecessarily clunkily.
It's the internet, get used to it. But no, he's not condescending. In an argument, if someone were to say, "Abraham Lincoln was a better president than Hoover because he led us in the Revolutionary War," you do not "simply address his point." You can't, because Lincoln did no such thing. So you point out your "opponent's" mistake. It might seem condescending, but it's not bad arguing. Xyro was arguing that Dedede's CG was escapable by Marth and Sonic, and using that as an argument against the ICs' CG; of course Hylian is going to correct him.
Not really, no.
As far as I know, Delfino is a neutral stage. Others such as Smashville have moving platforms. And no, this only means that you will lose the first and third matches if you get chaingrabbed, which as every IC main has stated is not as easy as everyone thinks.
Except to make a valid point!
Bustin' out more Logic 101, eh?
It's relevant because it's another technique that people have been pushing to get banned.
God, I don't even want to wade through this. It's a mire of clumsy writing.
I really don't want to... but I can't resist a good combo.
Iunno how much you know about the ICs' CG, but I think Hylian means that he can do a throw, and then do an attack which is part of the CG - that is, that leads to another grab. In this way he can effectively bypass the three-throw limit and still get a 0-death combo. Watch the Snowstorm video.
no
Hey, a passive-aggressive little "ad hominem." I won't repost my opinion on premature banning.
Except Xyro was the one who made the comparison between Wobbling and the IC CG in Brawl, and Hylian was just rolling with that.
Hmm, now you're questioning the legitimacy of the boycott.
To be fair, Xyro is being ridiculously frustrating. I'm impressed Hylian's kept his cool as much as he has. Adding a little "I'm not against you" at the end of his (poorly-constructed) argument (I mean honestly, "toooo bad, soooo sad?") does not make everything better.
The fact that you have no idea what most of those are speaks for itself.
Yeah, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. Halfway through your post I figured you were a mathy guy but by then I'd come too far. Also, what got me the most was your way of expressing yourself. It's obvious you're not an idiot (internet compliment), but the way you attacked Hylian with big, poorly-used words and unnecessarily long sentences just oozed with a pretentiousness that I couldn't let slide, especially since I'm against the ban.
.Juggalo said:
