Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Pi]

Makes sense.

But, following that course of logic, would we not also have to ban all the grab release infinites on Wario? What about in Smash 64, DK's cargo grab release infinite on Kirby?

I'm not saying this as an argument. I'm legitimately asking whether the pro ban side thinks these things should be banned.

(I asked SamuraiPanda what I could do about wanting all infinites banned and he told me just to discuss it here)
Personally, yes, I feel all infinite's should be banned
Stocks should not be reduced to 1 technique.
Which is why walled stages and walk off stages were banned.
Sure they fit into the 'criteria' for a ban
But for reasons unique to our game.



Other things worth mentioning:

Banning a character has far more affect, as far as people getting ban-happy, than banning a technique does.

We have banned techniques before
And we have not gotten ban happy.
So stop using that as an argument.

 

[pure_awesome]

There's a fundamental difference between the type of "banning" that occurs with items, as I explained before, items off is no different from "neutral guard off", the game forces a choice (and sticking with the defaults is choosing the defaults), so any choice is equally valid prior to specifics, and therefore any advantage is reasonable for choosing a new standard.

We create a set of rules independent of the rules suggested to us or even offered to us by the game itself.
If you think that banning items from competitive play is somehow a different "type" of ban than banning anything else... well, you're wrong. There's really no other way to put it. Saying "No items" is no different from saying "No WarioWare". The means of enforcing it will be different, and the reasoning or what-not, but in the end, we just don't play with them.

That was the major reason that MK could be argued to overcentralize the metagame, the smart pro-banners were pointing this out.

Again, this is wrong. The pro-banners that matter knew that Metaknight doesn't overcentralize the game any more than any other powerful character would.

But this is irrelevant. I've always been of the opinion that this argument boils down to what we want the counterpick system to be, not some hazily defined ban criteria.

Regardless, the criteria of "broke the counterpick system", fails miserably. It didn't deserve to be a ban criteria.

In your opinion.

I have no issue with the arguments you've debated thus far. Some of them have been well thought-out and to the point, though as is true with Smashboards nowadays, the majority from both sides has been fairly irrelevant. I am merely pointing out that saying that over-centralization is the sole criteria to examine to warrant a ban is false. Not only this, but we are able to establish new criteria if we feel that something should be banned but does not match any of the current ones.

To the anti-ban side: If this were the only true infinite in the game, do you feel it would be banned?

(I asked SamuraiPanda what I could do about wanting all infinites banned and he told me just to discuss it here)
Personally, yes, I feel all infinite's should be banned

Okay, thank you. I'm just trying to get a feel for the kind of people that are in here repping the sides.

Curiosity and all that.

 

[adumbrodeus]

We create a set of rules independent of the rules suggested to us or even offered to us by the game itself.
If you think that banning items from competitive play is somehow a different "type" of ban than banning anything else... well, you're wrong. There's really no other way to put it. Saying "No items" is no different from saying "No WarioWare". The means of enforcing it will be different, and the reasoning or what-not, but in the end, we just don't play with them.

So, no damage ratio 1.1? No metal melee? No low gravity? No high gravity?

So the competative standard should be presumed to be all items, set to high, medium, low, and none, with gravity set to high and low, damage ratio set to 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc, and etc, right?




Sure, the effect is the same, but the fact that there's a forced choice between mutually exclusive options , it's IMPOSSIBLE TO ENABLE ALL THE OPTIONS, so we made a choice. That's why "items off" is presumed just as valid as "items on", and once advantage was discovered, "items off" was chosen as the standard.

Again, this is wrong. The pro-banners that matter knew that Metaknight doesn't overcentralize the game any more than any other powerful character would.

But this is irrelevant. I've always been of the opinion that this argument boils down to what we want the counterpick system to be, not some hazily defined ban criteria.

The argument was the MK would become the only practical character because he broke the counter-pick system and would have a virus-like spread as a result. I remember, I was there.


The fact is that immunity to counter-picks DOES overcentralize the metagame a great deal more then simply being powerful.

In your opinion.

Because if true, it's just overcentralization in a new package, there's no reason to add something else that says the same thing.

Your definition of "tearing down" is questionable. Though I'll ignore that last bit since I'm yet to take a personal stance on the issue.

"Attacking", the point was that we were responding to every mentioned criteria explaining why we disagreed with it's use.

 

[camzaman]

We have banned techniques before
And we have not gotten ban happy.
So stop using that as an argument.

Exactly you fools. Stop the 'slippery slope' BS, stop the 'let's not do something rash' BS. Has Bum's region started sliding down the slippery slope into oblivion? No, it's the best in the country.

 

[pure_awesome]

So, no damage ratio 1.1? No metal melee? No low gravity? No high gravity?

So the competative standard should be presumed to be all items, set to high, medium, low, and none, with gravity set to high and low, damage ratio set to 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, etc, and etc, right?

Of course. The competitive standard could also be presumed to be played as a time attack on Subspace Emissary. Because not only do we have very ill-defined definitions of banning, but we also lack in all common sense.

Sure, the effect is the same, but the fact that there's a forced choice between mutually exclusive options , it's IMPOSSIBLE TO ENABLE ALL THE OPTIONS, so we made a choice. That's why "items off" is presumed just as valid as "items on", and once advantage was discovered, "items off" was chosen as the standard.

So your argument is essentially that if there was a button in the Options menu that said "DeDeDe Infinite Grab On/Off", then it would be fine for us to ban it?

The argument was the MK would become the only practical character because he broke the counter-pick system and would have a virus-like spread as a result. I remember, I was there.

I was there as well. If this is how you remember it, I'm not going to argue with you.

Because if true, it's just overcentralization in a new package, there's no reason to add something else that says the same thing.

Again, in your opinion. I know many people who feel that Metaknight broke the counterpick system without over-centralizing the game. Not having an official counter doesn't explicitly rule out personal counters. I would take Ninjalink's Diddy over any Metaknight, but I still think Metaknight has the advantage in the match-up.

 

[Donkey Bong]

doesnt D3 destroy the characters that he has an infinite against with/without the infinite anyways? it'll just draw the match out longer than necessary

 

[Pi]

doesn't D3 destroy the characters that he has an infinite against with/without the infinite anyways? it'll just draw the match out longer than necessary

I don't know if he destroys them
But this is irrelevant to the discussion

At the moment actually we're debating the current ban criteria

 

[XxBlackxX]

Exactly you fools. Stop the 'slippery slope' BS, stop the 'let's not do something rash' BS. Has Bum's region started sliding down the slippery slope into oblivion? No, it's the best in the country.

appeal to authority BS.....

just because BUM's region for some reason banned it, and you think "they're the best in the country", we should all follow suit?

that's ********, it's just like namedropping, you thrown in the name(in this case region) of someone (some region) good and assume that since he is a good smasher (the region is full of good smashers), then all their decisions regarding the ruleset must be correct.

 

[Pi]

appeal to authority BS.....

just because BUM's region for some reason banned it, and you think "they're the best in the country", we should all follow suit?

that's ********, it's just like namedropping, you thrown in the name(in this case region) of someone (some region) good and assume that since he is a good smasher (the region is full of good smashers), then all their decisions regarding the ruleset must be correct.

Look at it more as an experiment

So far, so good.

They tried banning it and it's going fine so far, no deathly repercussions, nobody's getting ban-happy

It's working

 

[XxBlackxX]

Look at it more as an experiment

So far, so good.

They tried banning it and it's going fine so far, no deathly repercussions, nobody's getting ban-happy

It's working

and every TO has a choice to ban these anyway. what im saying, what BUM does, banning the infinites at his tournies, is TOTALLY fine.
HOWEVER, i am against the SBR banning this in their recommended ruleset because of reasons ive stated.

 

[Pi]

and every TO has a choice to ban these anyway. what im saying, what BUM does, banning the infinites at his tournies, is TOTALLY fine.
HOWEVER, i am against the SBR banning this in their recommended ruleset because of reasons ive stated.

Because it doesn't fit the criteria - which will lead to people getting ban-happy

Right?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Because it doesn't fit the criteria - which will lead to people getting ban-happy

Right?

right. and all that other stuff about losing the ruleset that has the least restrictions and keeps the game as a whole playable competitively.

not only that, but why are we banning a move that isn't over-centralizing? in a way, MK destroys matchups just as bad. however, he has few **** matchups.

so the only argument the pro-ban has is that the infinite is TOO much? (as in, breaks the matchups/ make it too unfair?)

 

[superglucose]

No! We didn't ban wobbling and we shouldn't ban this. If they use the infinite grab as a stall then yes, they should be DQd for stalling. All it means is that you need to a) pick one of the other 31 characters this game has or b) avoid getting grabbed.

 

[Throwback]

The positive from banning is very clear. Can someone please explain what harm banning the infinite causes?

Otherwise you have a situation where the game is improved, with no negative - but people are still against it?

 

[Pi]

right. and all that other stuff about losing the ruleset that has the least restrictions and keeps the game as a whole playable competitively.

not only that, but why are we banning a move that isn't over-centralizing? in a way, MK destroys matchups just as bad. however, he has few **** matchups.

so the only argument the pro-ban has is that the infinite is TOO much? (as in, breaks the matchups/ make it too unfair?)

1 technique vs 5 unplayable characters?
Seems like removing it would do a better job of keeping the game as a whole playable competitively.

MK doesn't destroy matchups just as bad. MK is not comparable to an infinite.
Not to mention-this infinite has no solution. MK may very well have some hiding in the deep recesses of our brains

And in regards to your 'why are we banning a move that isn't over-centralizing'
Simply put
We feel a move does not need to meet this vague standard to be banned.

No! We didn't ban wobbling and we shouldn't ban this. If they use the infinite grab as a stall then yes, they should be DQd for stalling. All it means is that you need to a) pick one of the other 31 characters this game has or b) avoid getting grabbed.

Why didn't we ban wobbling.
Why shouldn't we ban this.
Why should we be forced to counterpick instead of removing this infinite?

Answer me these questions please.
Preferably without the phrase 'it doesn't overcentralize the game'

The positive from banning is very clear. Can someone please explain what harm banning the infinite causes?

Otherwise you have a situation where the game is improved, with no negative - but people are still against it?

The downside's are only theoretical
People are afraid, that if we ban this move
People will start requesting bans on all broken moves

Which is not the case, I assure you.

There is a line here, and it's been crossed, and it has been crossed

It's better late than never to correct our mistakes.

 

[Eddie G]

No! We didn't ban wobbling and we shouldn't ban this. If they use the infinite grab as a stall then yes, they should be DQd for stalling. All it means is that you need to a) pick one of the other 31 characters this game has or b) avoid getting grabbed.

...What?

 

[cutter]

...What?

The SBR did not officially ban wobbling. It was also ALLOWED in MLG as well.

 

[Eddie G]

The SBR did not officially ban wobbling. It was also ALLOWED in MLG as well.

I see, thanks for the clarification. I was misinformed by another person then.

 

[Flamingo]

The positive from banning is very clear. Can someone please explain what harm banning the infinite causes?

Otherwise you have a situation where the game is improved, with no negative - but people are still against it?

well said my friend.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Using items during a match is not over-centralized play. If you think it's stupid not to use items in an item match, I suggest you take the issue up with CPU and Ken, the two finalists of the Evo2k8 items tournament, who frequently throughout the tournament avoided picking up items in order to capitalize on another situation.
For example, in the finals themselves, Ken picked up a hammer. CPU calmly smashed him off the stage, where he fell to his death.
Saying that items play degenerates into "Get the items" is untrue.

ken doing poorly with items does not disprove the argument.
Thats similar to osmeone screwing up DDD's infinite.
Again in those matchups, both players would grab the items because it would be foolish not to do so. When a Smash ball comes out do you honestly believe they'll just leave it alone?
How about a banana?
Dragoon part?

using an item poorly doesn't change the fact that they focused their gameplay around the items when they were made available.

Bottom line: Items are banned because they randomly affect the outcome of the match, not because they over-centralize play.
Ergo, over-centralization is not the sole factor for a ban.

Wrong.
Long termw ise the better skilled player WILL win in the end.
however a format in which items are dominating matches is not healthy to competitive play.
Say you get smashed off stage.
A pokeball appears. You are now capable of possibly dominating the entire match ebcause that pokeball will now allow you to continuously grab the other items.
you see this online as well.
a cracker launcher pops up, someone grabs it, sweeps everyone off, theng rabs the rest of the items or starts tossing crap.

The random outcomes are a minority.
Let alone that the focus then falls down to characters who are extremely fast and capable at grabbing items.

Yet, it's what the SBR was talking about.

That is the SBR, they are not the end of all smash.
Again you have characters who are Cp resilient like Marth in melee.
Ban marth from melee?
obviously such an argument is very flawed.

If you don't understand, just ask me to clarify. There's no shame in not understanding what someone is trying to say over the internet, since the majority of human understanding comes from vocal intonation and body language. Just ask

No that isn't why dude, its just... silly.
hence why I said for you to read it over.

Considering this was specifically addressed as an argument to the pro-ban side, I'm completely baffled as to why you decided to argue against it.
Lesson 1 of internet maturity: Not everyone is out to get you.

Lesson 2 of the internet: make sure that the audience whom you are addressing is clear and does not get mixed in with the subject preceding it. Otherwise, you'll get a response like the one I provided.

kk?

It does work. But we can better it. You refuse to for reasons beyond me

Again I ask.
WHAT IS THE PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENT?
repeating yourself that it wors, it works doesn't mean anything if you have yet to even PROVE it.

They don't have to. They are not the same. Their rules can be fine tuned and bettered for each individual game, because each individual game has individual factors that play into it.

oh so because we are different we need different ban criteria?
mind you all of those respective games came to the exact same conclusion IN SPITE of the differences.
What part of that do you not understand?

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm saying it doesn't have to be so strict
(hell, you have failed to draw the line for what over-centralizes the metagame, is it 20% 30% 50% 60% of the characters?)

Cause clearly a little over 13% is CLEARLY affecting the metagame.
As ffor giving a line, I proposed it long ago so do not make such accusations.

It's lazy because you say it without thinking[quoet]
its lazy because you THINK there was no reasoning behind it.
Simply put, you are skimming and have not even bothered to read anything that was stated preceding your appearance in this topic.

Of course it works, but it relies on CP's, and it doesn't have to

Again then we should ban anything that forces characters to CP.
Let alone the Cp system was MADE for THIS very reason.

They have put very little. All they fall back on is the same thing 'it doesn't meet the criteria'/quote]
Read the rest of the topic or hell, look up Yuna's posts or adumbrodeus posts in this topic.
Accusations get you nowhere.

Ah, no, it is not. That is not the only argument we use, but it is a viable one
Just don't look at it as whining[quoet]
Cry me a river and I'll get my canoe.

You act like we can do something to prevent it from happening (Aside from CP)

The fact there is a solution to the problem already means we do not have to ban it.
banning is the LAST RESORT to problems.
Seriously why must I repeat something stated page, to page to page
.
The fact you already ahve a solution and refuse to use it is a result of you being stubborn.

Don't whine, learn2play your character without overpowered gimps o.O
Or is that too much to ask?

yes it is.
you are asking someone to completely change their style when facing another character just because it palces the otehr character at a disadvantage.
Shall I go ask the Old Sagat users not to fireball spam my E.Honda?
How about I ask every user of every character in GG to not zone my pooor baiken because I get a disadvantage?
How about I tell MK users to not use M ebcause it places my Sonic at a disadvantage.
You are asking the system to change to fit your own PERSONAL needs.
This is NOT how competitive gaming works.
We do not go out of our way to help individuals.
It is inconsistent and if we are to be consistent, leads to an unhealthy metagame.

Every other character is not in this situation, stop using it, it's a weak argument.
These are 95:5 match ups, not 60:40

That does not matter.
DDD's infinite is a factor into them having such a major advantage just like PIkachu's everything counters Fox.

Do you ignore the point of everything stated on purpose?

Proof that it will work? The proof is that you haven't presented any reason it wouldn't. 'Innocent until proven guilty' Prove this ban will negatively affect the game.

Clearly you do not read my posts.
the BURDEn of PROOF is on YOUR SIDE.
The argument of overcentralizing is a general rule that has not only governed in smash concerning bans, but many other games preceding it,
it has been tested, found to work best.
You are now challenging something that is already proven.
YOU must disprove it.

We could use it, it would work. But why not fine tune it? Why resign ourselves to an imperfect guideline when we have the time and ability to go into more detail?

Don't fix what ain't broken.

Uh, as I said, I'm in favor of banning all infinite. 1 technique should not determine a match, that is far too easy.

obviously you have no knowledge about any other competitive game because what I stated was a DEATH COMBO. Not an infinite.

Anti-ban side has no proof other than 'this worked for this other game'
Which is weak, and not thought out.

You're joing right?
The fact that it has worked for evry other game outside and including smash IS proof. It is VERY srtrong proof.
you basically said "So you have a million results saying 1+1=2 but that is weak!".

Otherwise what? Of course it works, people are forced to counterpick
You act like this is a perfect solution o.O

Everyone who is using anyone except a handful of characters is forced to CP.
Again if you ban DDD's infinite just to fix those matchups you must fix every other matchup that forces a CP.

I'm not ignoring anything
Your character will just get CP'd to D3 then what? Then you lose.
It doesn't have to be this way, stop resigning yourself to it

You obviously have no clue what goes on.
EVERYONE except for MK has a character that counters them.
EVERYONE, which means you must ALWAYS have a secondary for when you are CP;ed.
Again, no Olimar in their right mind will stay as Olimar against Peach.
no Sonic will stay as Sonic against MK.
They are all forced to CP.
If you fail to have another character to cover you that is a flaw in yourself as a competitive gamer not a failure of the system.

Why are you trying to justify people doing dumb things?

I'll CP when a character out-classes my own due to a multitude of reasons, not 1 big broken one.

I don't care what YOU will do.
Simple as that.

'most likely'? That's not real solid bud
That's like giving G&W's bair/nair the same KB as falcon punch
With proper DI you're not gonna die unless you get hit by a big, difficult to land move
This is easy as **** to land. But we're ignoring difficulty here.

Except if G*W had KB to his bair like a warlock punch he would probably get banned because that would BREAK THE GAME because it is UNIVERSAL and it EXTREMELY POWERFUL.
So far, DDD's is just the latter it isn't the former.

A tool? No, this is a gun in a knife fight. It doesn't hurt DDD, it just gives him more characters to combat. If you're whining about that then I'd call you lazy

how does it NOT hurt DDD?
You just lowered his potential capability against those 5 characters.
Thats like telling an MK he can't use the shuttle loop.
You are taking a tool away from a character in order to benefit the other character.

Not banning it hurts the metagame because it would be wasteful to put your time into mastering one of these characters when any reasonable tourney goer is just going to CP D3 and 3 stock you.

You don't know how the CP system works.
Let us say I whip your *** as DK when you use MK.
You announce your stage CP.
I then announce my character
You then Cp.

pay attention to the bolded part.
That means you are capable of avoiding the 3 stock loss.
I can then switch to any other character who doesn't get *** ***** by DDD.

its not LOL I CP DDD YOU LOSE.

It does, however slightly

Putting a penny in a donation box mens you aided the orphanage as mucha s Bill gates does if he donated two million dollars.

That is what you are saying.
Which is wrong.
And stupid.

No, it's not
Because it's 1 technique that is making the match a 95:5 instead of a 60:40
1 technique that is ban worthy
1 technique that is easily monitored, easily performed, and ****s you over.

Why is it ban worthy?
its easy to perform
It kills 5 characters.
Big deal. If ts just because it makes a nasty matchup thats not an issue.
That is a part of competitive gaming. here will ALWAYS be one technique or several that bone a character over.
They are not ban worthy though because of the fact that they do not hurt the metagame.

Let alone you can completely avoid it so anyone practicing DDD solely for the infinite is doing themself harm.
Look at that no more of an issue.
its like a Bowser user staying as Bowser when they know melee is going to be CP'ed against him.

You have a solution, use the solution.

Here's what your problem is

here we go.

The criteria SHOULD be different

Apparently ths doesn't get through to you.

WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?

Any criteria that is applies to such different aspects of a game is obviously flawed
Can't you see that?

Can you not see that overcentralizing encompasses all those different aspects? -_;
Do you have no knowledge on competitive gaming?

Especially not a one sentence criteria

yep you don't.

Look at contracts, they are pages and pages long going into details about every variable. This is a sweeping generalization of all competitive games. It should NOT be used as the only criteria, there are too many holes, too many variables to consider.

Overcentralizing is the summary of that contract.

Let alone you completely ignored my E. Honda example several pages back.

This is a guideline at best.

Which you have yet to prove should not be used.

stuff

I hear a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
Competitive gaming is not there to let you use your favorite character.
Competitive gaming is about winning.
period.
You want to use your favorite character? Go ahead but don't expect people to go "oh lol let me not use this strategy that will give me he best chance of winning."

There is money and prizes on the line. And people should have the right to use what is available to them provided it is not harming the metagame as a whole.
The competitive gaming community does not cater to individual characters just because its "unfair" or "overpowered".
It has to be a very good reason otherwise, slippery slope applies.

 

[Pi]

well said my friend.

But, alas, it is not so simple.

 

[ShadowLink84]

But, alas, it is not so simple.

You do know you are befriending yourself with someone who thinks
"lol needles break Sonic"right?

 

[aeghrur]

After skimming through the arguments, I'm even more anti-ban now, not due to anti-ban's persuasiveness, but simply due to how badly pro-ban is portraying their side.
Okay, let's get this through the head of people right now:
Anti-ban does not have to prove that banning this is bad.
Pro-Ban has to prove beyond REASONABLE doubt, based upon a ban criteria, why it should be banned.
Pro-ban has yet disprove anti-ban's BASIC reasons for not banning, they have yet to make a ban criteria, and they have yet to prove it beyond reasonable doubt(look at this argument, lol, lots of reasonable doubt).

 

[ShadowLink84]

Don't you mean even more anti ban? XD

 

[beamswordsman]

Winter break is almost here....

And about what knihT replied earlier to, that seems a little extreme. Of course people most likely won't look for counters for banned characters/stages/tactics. But thats why this has to be thought out. Being lazy and banning over weaknesses of characters won't solve this.

 

[Eddie G]

I give up on these debates about MK, infinites, and whatever else. Debate, to me, is another way to say "neverending see-saw of rebuttals and arguments". This will never end. I'm starting to believe that it's futile to state one's claim and fight to prove it. I'm neutral now.

 

[aeghrur]

Don't you mean even more anti ban? XD

X_X Mehhhhhh, typos, lol.

 

[Kinzer]

Okay that's enough, I've had it with this, we are resorting to trying to make the other side look stupid, and obviously neither is working because there are still people who think this infinite should be banned/left in the game.

Nothing more can be done except for the SBR to finally tell us what should be done!

Good God, both sides are saying that the other has to bring something to the table.

Nothing more can be done, we all obviously have a different mindset.

/thread

/debate

I am seriously finished with keeping myself up-to-date with this thread, if you want to continue arguing my points, go ahead and waste your time because it's going to fall on blind-eyes

 

[Throwback]

But, alas, it is not so simple.

Yes, it is that simple.

1. Banning D3's infinite throw is very easy.

2. Infinite throw ban - 5 more characters viable. Plus!

3. No Infinite throw ban - Same characters viable.


That is all that needs to be considered, not some precious ideal.

 

[Pi]

God your posts are annoying to respond to.

Again I ask.
WHAT IS THE PROOF OF YOUR ARGUMENT?
repeating yourself that it wors, it works doesn't mean anything if you have yet to even PROVE it.

You missed my point. I was saying that the old ban criteria works. But we can improve it.

oh so because we are different we need different ban criteria?
mind you all of those respective games came to the exact same conclusion IN SPITE of the differences.
What part of that do you not understand?

(bold part) Um...it does kinda make sense ya o.O, we are different so let's create an individual ban criteria.

The part I don't understand is how it is infallible.

Cause clearly a little over 13% is CLEARLY affecting the metagame.
As ffor giving a line, I proposed it long ago so do not make such accusations.

Again, you missed my point. I didn't say it D3's infinite was overcentralizing the metagame.
And if YOU proposed it, why couldn't you just repeat it?

its lazy because you THINK there was no reasoning behind it.
Simply put, you are skimming and have not even bothered to read anything that was stated preceding your appearance in this topic.

Don't say I don't read, I do read. Not a one of you has gone into any more detail than repeating 'overcentralizing the metagame'. At least not for the past 3 days.

Give me reasoning.

Again then we should ban anything that forces characters to CP.
Let alone the Cp system was MADE for THIS very reason.

Again you exaggerate and make sweeping generalizations. We're not talking about anything. And the 'anything's you speak of don't force a character to CP. It just makes it a wiser decision. This is not the case with D3 and his infinite.

Read the rest of the topic or hell, look up Yuna's posts or adumbrodeus posts in this topic.
Accusations get you nowhere.

Sorry if I hesitate to read 200 pages. But after spending 3 days in this topic, and not seeing one person go deeper than repeating the same phrase over and over I'd say it's a safe bet to assume this.

Cry me a river and I'll get my canoe.

Again, you miss my point. I said 'it isn't fair' isn't the only, or even sole, argument we use. And I asked you to not think of it as whining.

The fact there is a solution to the problem already means we do not have to ban it.
banning is the LAST RESORT to problems.
Seriously why must I repeat something stated page, to page to page

You're taking banning far to seriously in this circumstance. You're acting as though if we ban this move we'll be **** near tearing the game apart, which is just not the case.

Sure, we have CPing as a solution, but there's no reason to jump to this. It juss seems lazy on anti-ban's side. We have the time and the resources to put thought into prospective broken moves, why should we just dismiss everything by CPing?

The fact you already ahve a solution and refuse to use it is a result of you being stubborn.

Stubborn is sticking to your guns regardless of how many times they've been picked away at for the sake of sticking to your guns. You, my friend, are stubborn.

I've, on several occasions, accepted and enforced CPing as a vaiable option, but when it becomes your only option (with something as harsh as a 95:5 match up), THAT is when we have a problem.

yes it is.
you are asking someone to completely change their style when facing another character just because it palces the otehr character at a disadvantage.
Shall I go ask the Old Sagat users not to fireball spam my E.Honda?
How about I ask every user of every character in GG to not zone my pooor baiken because I get a disadvantage?
How about I tell MK users to not use M ebcause it places my Sonic at a disadvantage.
You are asking the system to change to fit your own PERSONAL needs.
This is NOT how competitive gaming works.
We do not go out of our way to help individuals.
It is inconsistent and if we are to be consistent, leads to an unhealthy metagame.

Change their playstyle? They did that to begin with. Most every character requires a different playstyle to combat, none should be as easy as 'grab your opponent and win.'

Once again, you're taking this too lightly. It's not just a 'disadvantage', it's an impossible match up. And I suspect all the examples you use are no where near as severe as this matchup is.
(you seem to ramble here, are you tired? But if I get you right
Again, your analogies are weak and ineffective. They are not to the extent that this infinite is, and they do not relate to this discussion.
We are not talking about banning characters, we're talking about 1 move.
1 move that affects 6 characters, and we are asking for it to be removed, which will affect only these 6 characters. Hence, canceling out the overwhelming advantage in it's entirety.

That does not matter.
DDD's infinite is a factor into them having such a major advantage just like PIkachu's everything counters Fox.

It sure as hell does matter o.O. Does pikachu have a sure fire way to 0-death kill fox? Does he have a sure fire way to rack up gobs and gobs of % on him with little effort and little hope for fox of avoiding it?

Does he have an INFINITE on fox? If he does, ban it.

Do you ignore the point of everything stated on purpose?

Zzz

Clearly you do not read my posts.
the BURDEn of PROOF is on YOUR SIDE.
The argument of overcentralizing is a general rule that has not only governed in smash concerning bans, but many other games preceding it,
it has been tested, found to work best.
You are now challenging something that is already proven.
YOU must disprove it.

I do read your posts. Even though I regret it afterward.

The burden of proof does not rest solely on our shoulders, in case you haven't noticed 55% of the community believes differently than you. And if you fail to see that your side is not lacking obvious proof then I suggest you get your prescription glasses checked.

'Found to work best.'
I beg to differ.

Anything that would allow infinites into competitive gameplay is obviously not working best.

Don't fix what ain't broken.

about time one of you used this!
I been waiting and waiting...
How's this. D3's infinite is broken. Let's fix it
(Not to mention this is one lazy *** saying)

obviously you have no knowledge about any other competitive game because what I stated was a DEATH COMBO. Not an infinite.

Yes I'm a ******* yada yada yada, you're not helpin your case here bud =\

You're joing right?
The fact that it has worked for evry other game outside and including smash IS proof. It is VERY srtrong proof.
you basically said "So you have a million results saying 1+1=2 but that is weak!".
Everyone who is using anyone except a handful of characters is forced to CP.
Again if you ban DDD's infinite just to fix those matchups you must fix every other matchup that forces a CP.

I have already stated that it has worked. My argument is that it is not perfect, and could greatly be improved.

Again you exaggerate.
This is not a 60:40 force CP
It's not a 70:30 force CP

It's a **** near 100:0 force CP, stop grouping .001 with 49, it's weak.

You obviously have no clue what goes on.
EVERYONE except for MK has a character that counters them.
EVERYONE, which means you must ALWAYS have a secondary for when you are CP;ed.
Again, no Olimar in their right mind will stay as Olimar against Peach.
no Sonic will stay as Sonic against MK.
They are all forced to CP.
If you fail to have another character to cover you that is a flaw in yourself as a competitive gamer not a failure of the system.

More insults please.

'must always' implies that if you don't, you will lose. Which is NOT the case. Stop exaggerating jeeze.

All these examples you list have a way better chance than any of the 5 characters we list vs D3.

STOP USING THEM AS EXAMPLES, THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THIS MATCH UP.

Why are you trying to justify people doing dumb things?

Dumb things? Like ignoring an obviously broken move for fear that it will open the flood gates and force us to ban everything till every match is reduced to 50-50?

I don't care what YOU will do.
Simple as that.

You have missed my point, again.
I was saying that 1 technique should not bring a matchup from a 60:40 to a 95:5.
And that if my character was generally just outclassed by another, I would have no trouble CPing, but when 1 move is stopping me from having a decent fight, I shouldn't have to CP, the move should be banned.

Except if G*W had KB to his bair like a warlock punch he would probably get banned because that would BREAK THE GAME because it is UNIVERSAL and it EXTREMELY POWERFUL.
So far, DDD's is just the latter it isn't the former.

Again you miss my point.
You said 'most likely' in regards to 129% being the % characters should be dying at any way
I spliced G&W's bair with falcon punch to equate to you the ease at which it is to land D3's grab and ensure death at this %.

Hard to land moves (or refreshed ones) are the only moves that should be killing you at 129%
unless you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not easy moves like G&W's bair and D3's grab.

how does it NOT hurt DDD?
You just lowered his potential capability against those 5 characters.
Thats like telling an MK he can't use the shuttle loop.
You are taking a tool away from a character in order to benefit the other character.

It does hurt DDD.

But here's an analogy for you:
You're put in a room with 10 others
The only way to escape is over a wall
You and 2 others are given ladders to use to get over the wall.

Then the ladders are taken away.
You abilities to get over the wall are hurt-but your brought back down to speed with everyone else in the room.
Is it unfair that your ladders gotten taken away? Or was it unfair for you to get them in the first place?

You don't know how the CP system works.
Let us say I whip your *** as DK when you use MK.
You announce your stage CP.
I then announce my character
You then Cp.

pay attention to the bolded part.
That means you are capable of avoiding the 3 stock loss.
I can then switch to any other character who doesn't get *** ***** by DDD.

its not LOL I CP DDD YOU LOSE.

To be honest, I'm not confident in my knowledge of the CP system.

So let me get this straight. Hypothetical situation:
Samus vs. Wolf 1st match
Samus wins
Wolf CP's a stage
Then I announce which character I will use - let's say Marth
Then you announce your character.

Is this right?

Putting a penny in a donation box mens you aided the orphanage as mucha s Bill gates does if he donated two million dollars.

You missed my point again...

I was simply pointing out that this does affect the metagame some what. Do you disagree? I wasn't using this as an argument, I was just pointing it out.

That is what you are saying.
Which is wrong.
And stupid.

No, that's not what I was saying. Thanks for insulting me again though

Why is it ban worthy?
its easy to perform
It kills 5 characters.
Big deal. If ts just because it makes a nasty matchup thats not an issue.
That is a part of competitive gaming. here will ALWAYS be one technique or several that bone a character over.
They are not ban worthy though because of the fact that they do not hurt the metagame.

Once more you put sugar on the infinite
It's not a nasty match up, it is more than that, you know this, everyone knows this, stop trying to put it lightly.

1 technique? All and every fighting games that ever have existed, and every will existed have characters in which 1 technique seals the fate of another?

Are these common? Are these infinites common? No, they are not. This is a special case, this is not comparable to MK vs CF
THIS is ban worthy because it does precisely what you quoted:

its easy to perform
It kills 5 characters.

IT KILLS 5 CHARACTERS.

Let alone you can completely avoid it so anyone practicing DDD solely for the infinite is doing themself harm.
Look at that no more of an issue.
its like a Bowser user staying as Bowser when they know melee is going to be CP'ed against him.

Completely avoid getting grabbed? Do you propose we run around for 8 minutes? Want me to land a zair then stall on the edge? oh wait that's banned

Nope, it can't be avoided.
(Again you're kinda rambling 'look at that no more of an issue' 'bowser user staying as bowser when they know melee is going to be CP'ed' what?)

You have a solution, use the solution.

We have a solution (banning the move). Let's use that one instead. It's better.

here we go.

Yet you neglect to quote my main argument. This is not a character ban, it's a move ban.

Apparently ths doesn't get through to you.

WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?
WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?WHY?

Why should it be changed? Because it does and should not encompass:
All games, ever
Characters
Moves
Items

That measly little sentence does not govern all of these aspects. Stop acting like it does

Can you not see that overcentralizing encompasses all those different aspects? -_;
Do you have no knowledge on competitive gaming?

It doesn't. It's a base to start from - All characters are affected equally by items, savvy? Any 1 character can potentially get lucky. This is not overcentralizing - we banned items to bring the game down to luck.

It is an rule imperfect for deciding individual characters and moves and should not be used as thus.

yep you don't.

Zzzz

Overcentralizing is the summary of that contract.

So get me the gospel of what is and what is not ban worthy please.

Let alone you completely ignored my E. Honda example several pages back.

I don't recall this example, mind quoting it for me?

Which you have yet to prove should not be used.

It should not be used because it is not specific enough. It is not perfect
We can do better
You refuse to do better
Why?

I hear a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
Competitive gaming is not there to let you use your favorite character.
Competitive gaming is about winning.
period.
You want to use your favorite character? Go ahead but don't expect people to go "oh lol let me not use this strategy that will give me he best chance of winning."

If competitive gaming was only about winning we would all be using metaknight.
We're not crying - we're stating our case which you so conveniently choose to ignore.

If you don't mind me asking - how old are you?

There is money and prizes on the line. And people should have the right to use what is available to them provided it is not harming the metagame as a whole.
The competitive gaming community does not cater to individual characters just because its "unfair" or "overpowered".
It has to be a very good reason otherwise, slippery slope applies.

Yes, they should be able to use what is available to them - But this infinite becomes unavailable when we ban it.

And here you go again falling back on that same old argument without elaborating Zzz

A very good reason? Removing 5 characters from playability is not a good reason?

And no - slippery slope does not apply
This argument has been refuted again and again, stop using it.
Bum's region is using it - it's working - nobody is getting ban happy - stop worrying (Although I don't actually think you believe this is a viable reason not to ban something so much as it is a last stitch effort to give some backbone to your side of this debate)

Yes, it is that simple.

1. Banning D3's infinite throw is very easy.

2. Infinite throw ban - 5 more characters viable. Plus!

3. No Infinite throw ban - Same characters viable.


That is all that needs to be considered, not some precious ideal.

I agree with you, it should be this simple

But it is not - because we have people who refuse to accept the fact that the tried and true guidelines they've grown accustom to might just not be infallible.

 

[aeghrur]

Yes, it is that simple.

1. Banning D3's infinite throw is very easy.

2. Infinite throw ban - 5 more characters viable. Plus!

3. No Infinite throw ban - Same characters viable.


That is all that needs to be considered, not some precious ideal.

No, no, try it this way:
You must prove D3's infinite deserve to be banned.
We say he doesn't.
You can't even set a CRITERIA for banning this thing, or prove it.
We're not here to allow everyone to play their favorite character, we're here to make the game competitive, and the infinite doesn't go against that.
No criteria, no proof, no ban.
Why do you have to have proof? Because you have the burden of proof due to you making the claim, changing status quot, or w/e you wanna call it.

 

[beamswordsman]

Give me reasoning.

Something that overcentralizes the metagame is a tactic thats is the main focus of ALL players in the community. It would be so bad eveyone would be focusing on trying to beat it, maybe even going to the point of 'Do this or lose'. The infinite isn't at that point.

And no - slippery slope does not apply
This argument has been refuted again and again, stop using it.

It DOES apply because the way many anti-banners see it, this is just another tactic that gives an advantage. If we ban this, we might as ban anything with a similar effect, which means 50-50 across the board or dittos with only one character.

 

[Throwback]

No, no, try it this way:
You must prove D3's infinite deserve to be banned.
We say he doesn't.
You can't even set a CRITERIA for banning this thing, or prove it.
We're not here to allow everyone to play their favorite character, we're here to make the game competitive, and the infinite doesn't go against that.
No criteria, no proof, no ban.
Why do you have to have proof? Because you have the burden of proof due to you making the claim, changing status quot, or w/e you wanna call it.

D3 infiniting 5 characters to death is so blatantly bannable (and so EASILY bannable) that the onus is actually on you to prove it's not bannable.

 

[Pi]

No, no, try it this way:
You must prove D3's infinite deserve to be banned.
We say he doesn't.
You can't even set a CRITERIA for banning this thing, or prove it.
We're not here to allow everyone to play their favorite character, we're here to make the game competitive, and the infinite doesn't go against that.
No criteria, no proof, no ban.
Why do you have to have proof? Because you have the burden of proof due to you making the claim, changing status quot, or w/e you wanna call it.

So our arguments that
- not 'overcentralizing the metagame' is not sufficient reasoning to not ban a technique
- the fact that it removes pretty much 5 characters from competitive play
- The fact that it's been banned without repercussions in certain regions
- the fact that the only downsides you have presented are suspect without any proof backing them

These are not enough?

How bout you give some more proof other than 'it doesn't overcentralize the metagame'
How bout you stop using that as a crutch
how bout you refute the fact that that lone little sentence shouldn't be the ultimate criteria for what should be banned in a game.

Something that overcentralizes the metagame is a tactic thats is the main focus of ALL players in the community. It would be so bad eveyone would be focusing on trying to beat it, maybe even going to the point of 'Do this or lose'. The infinite isn't at that point.

If something has this effect, it should be banned
But this should not be the only criteria we use.

It DOES apply because the way many anti-banners see it, this is just another tactic that gives an advantage. If we ban this, we might as ban anything with a similar effect, which means 50-50 across the board or dittos with only one character.

A similar effect? Reducing matches to 95:5? Yes, ban all singular techniques that SINGLE-HANDEDLY reduce matches to 95:5

Stop acting as if we ban this move we'll have to ban every move that gives any advantage whatsoever! That's not even logical! This isn't even a move! It's a technique!

This technique has been banned in BUM's region WITHOUT repercussions
Stop using suspect theories as backing for your claims.

 

[aeghrur]

So our arguments that
- 'overcentralizing the metagame' is not sufficient reasoning to not ban a technique
- the fact that it removes pretty much 5 characters from competitive play
- The fact that it's been banned without repercussions in certain regions
- the fact that the only downsides you have presented are suspect without any proof backing them

Lol, it's the ONLY SET criteria. The technique has not met it.
So what if it gives 5 characters crappy match ups and counterpicks? Does that overcentralize the metagame? No, lol. Does it fit your ban criteria that everybody agrees on? No, you don't have one.
Yeah, so? Lol, we're not saying tourny hosts can't ban it, we're saying as a community, we shouldn't ban it as a whole. Individual tournies doing things doesn't mean we should follow suit. EVO allowed items should we? -_-"
Lol, we don't need to proof. Learn something called THE BURDEN OF PROOF. YOU HAVE TO PROVE, WE DON'T, BASIC IDEAL OKAY?

These are not enough?

How bout you give some more proof other than 'it doesn't overcentralize the metagame'
How bout you stop using that as a crutch
how bout you refute the fact that that lone little sentence shouldn't be the ultimate criteria for what should be banned in a game.

Lol, I don't need proof. I just need to disprove. You've never learned about the burden of proof huh? Wikipedia it FFS. Asking us to prove this and that is like asking defense in a court case to prove innocence. In America, it isn't done.
Lol, can you kick away the crutch then? I challenge you to do so instead of saying "stop relying on that crutch." Too bad that you can't huh.
Lmao, lmao, who said ULTIMATE? We said it's the only SET criteria, as in, the only one universally accepted. How about YOU make us a ban criteria we can agree upon, then prove how this tactic fits under the ban criteria? Well, can you make this criteria and prove it? No. Until then, no ban.

 

[XxBlackxX]

D3 infiniting 5 characters to death is so blatantly bannable (and so EASILY bannable) that the onus is actually on you to prove it's not bannable.

lololololol

okay i got 3 things for you:

1. go play melee and complain about how shiek 0-deaths half of cast
2. NOTHING is easily bannable. banning is the LAST resort.
3. i can prove it's not bannable, it DOESN'T over-centralize!

actually, he is right. this kinda stuff has never been banned before, therefore the pro-bans have the burden of proof.

 

[Throwback]

lololololol

okay i got 3 things for you:

1. go play melee and complain about how shiek 0-deaths half of cast
2. NOTHING is easily bannable. banning is the LAST resort.
3. i can prove it's not bannable, it DOESN'T over-centralize!

actually, he is right. this kinda stuff has never been banned before, therefore the pro-bans have the burden of proof.

1. If I played melee, I probably would.
2. I think the ban in Bum's region proves it is easily bannable.
3. It does give an unwinnable match-up vs 5 characters though. Who cares if it over-centralizes or not. Seriously, anybody who isn't fanatically clinging to the 'perfect competetive game' can see that it is stupid.

 

[aeghrur]

1. If I played melee, I probably would.
2. I think the ban in Bum's region proves it is easily bannable.
3. It does give an unwinnable match-up vs 5 characters though. Who cares if it over-centralizes or not. Seriously, anybody who isn't fanatically clinging to the 'perfect competetive game' can see that it is stupid.

1. Scrub scrub scrub. xD
2. Lol, always sticking to that one thing even though we've stated:
a. Yes, TOs can ban it, but SWF doesn't have to.
b. We should not follow ONE tournament.
3. No, it doesn't. There was a mario main a few pages back saying he could win around 7 out of ten games despite his opponent knowing the infinite. It shows that skill can overcome it. It's not an unwinnable, it's a VERY HARD TO WIN match up. IT'S IN COMPETITIVE GAMES, DEAL WITH IT. We're not clinging to a perfect competitive, no one said that. We're saying competitive games are like this, too bad if you disagree. Prove to us why your ban criteria works and why this tactic fits under it and we'll ban it.

 

[beamswordsman]

A similar effect? Reducing matches to 95:5? Yes, ban all singular techniques that SINGLE-HANDEDLY reduce matches to 95:5

Might as well help the 'Terrible 2' then.

Stop acting as if we ban this move we'll have to ban every move that gives any advantage whatsoever! That's not even logical! This isn't even a move! It's a technique!

We act this way because it's a tactic that abuses a weakness. Counters more than likely do that, so thats why slippery slope is even mentioned.

This technique has been banned in BUM's region WITHOUT repercussions I bet some people are ticked though, and they might not even use DDD.
Stop using suspect theories as backing for your claims. Yet you act as if the infinite is a win button.

If you can prove the infinite fits the overcetraliztion example I said, it could help your side.

 

[K 2]

1. Scrub scrub scrub. xD
2. Lol, always sticking to that one thing even though we've stated:
a. Yes, TOs can ban it, but SWF doesn't have to.
b. We should not follow ONE tournament.
3. No, it doesn't. There was a mario main a few pages back saying he could win around 7 out of ten games despite his opponent knowing the infinite. It shows that skill can overcome it. It's not an unwinnable, it's a VERY HARD TO WIN match up. IT'S IN COMPETITIVE GAMES, DEAL WITH IT. We're not clinging to a perfect competitive, no one said that. We're saying competitive games are like this, too bad if you disagree. Prove to us why your ban criteria works and why this tactic fits under it and we'll ban it.

3. Exactly. It's a hard matchup with counters. It's beatable, but it is difficult, and with all hard matchups, you can ALWAYS SWITCH TO A SECONDARY.