Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Pi]

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?

We can't prove that it meets your criteria
I have STATED THIS
THIS TECHNIQUE DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT CRITERIA OF 'OVERCENTRALIZING THE METAGAME'
It doesn't.

We are now stating that this 'criteria' is FLAWED.
It is imperfect, a guideline, not a strict rule to be followed and applied across the board of every game every variable every aspect

You want proof? Because ALL GAMES ARE DIFFERENT.

You want better ban criteria? Here's what I come up with in the next 10 minutes:

Criteria on banning singular techniques:
-Doesn't allow characters to capitalize and win matches solely because of a programming error in the game.
-Doesn't allow characters to win by repeatedly using the same move over and over again
-Isn't a sure fire 0-death combo that renders human ability useless
-Doesn't allow a character to stall a match without fail
-Doesn't render characters at the will of the opponent for a length of time determined by the opponent (in other words, infinite).

As far as smash goes I'd put a % cap on how much a grab combo can do if preformed correctly; EX. Limiting the amount of % D3 can add to his opponent via a inescapable grab combo to XX amount - or banning it all together.

Go ahead - poke holes
But be sure to include examples analogies and solid reasoning.

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.

You haven't dis proven anything
All you keep repeating is that it doesn't overcentralize the metagame

Disprove the fact that it's working successfully in bum's region

Disprove that it won't hurt the game if it's banned

Disprove that rendering 5 characters warrants a ban - Let me guess 'it doesn't overcentralize the metagame'


WE ARE DISCUSSING A TECHNIQUE
NOT A CHARACTER

Your flawed criteria, if applied, should not be applied to techniques
It doesn't even make sense because 1 move can't overcentralize the metagame
Characters overcentralize the metagame

Bring that **** to the MK boards.

Start coming up with different arguments.


LISTEN UP
This technique does NOT overcentralize the metagame. If you follow this flawed criteria this move should NOT be banned.

I now formally present to you that this criteria is flawed. It does not, should not apply across the board. And last but not least it is not specific enough to be used indefinitely.

(also, I'm going to bed)

 

[XxBlackxX]

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. lolololol brawl scrub!! (no wonder you have no insight in competitive gaming)
2. no, i don't think what BUM's region did is RIGHT, though they can do anything they want, and you as a TO can ban this if you want, however, i am against banning this in SBR's ruleset
3. it absolutely DOES matter. unwinnable matchups happen. deal with it. learn2CP. because over-centralization is the ONLY criteria that everyone can agree on to an extent and it was used in melee and all other competitive fighting games. now you say this criteria is wrong. and we ban things to take away "unwinnable" matchups. that is stupid. first, find me proof that this is COMPLETELY unwinnable, second, going by your "unwinnable", what is indeed "unwinnable" in your opinion? see, you can't seperate this ban and go like "this is an exception" because it really isn't. all it is is that you can't play these characters against D3. deal with it. you can't play fox against pika either. nor sonic against MK. nor CF against a majority of the cast. ban them all?

EDIT:

Disprove that it will hurt the game if it's banned

Disprove that rendering 5 characters warrants a ban

Let me guess 'it doesn't overcentralize the metagame'

i belive i did disprove that it will hurt the game.

rendering 5 characters doesn't warrant a ban because bad matchups happen, unviable characters happen. deal with it.

yes, it doesn't

Your flawed criteria, if applied, should not be applied to techniques
It doesn't even make sense because 1 move can't overcentralize the metagame
Characters overcentralize the metagame

O RLY?

of course it can. IDC, anyone?
if the infinite was universal or very close to it, it would over-centralize.
but now? no.

LISTEN UP
This technique does NOT overcentralize the metagame. If you follow this flawed criteria this move should NOT be banned.

I now formally present to you that this criteria is flawed. It does not, should not apply across the board. And last but not least it is not specific enough to be used indefinitely.

what? you haven't proved/disproved ****, no offense. all you did was claim some random stuff that ive disproved

 

[beamswordsman]

LISTEN UP
This technique does NOT overcentralize the metagame. If you follow this flawed criteria this move should NOT be banned.

Yay for shooting yourself in the leg?
All games are different, but on a competitive level they are the same.
And although it may not be perfect, do you have a better suggestion that won't be corrupt (like an attempt to make all 50-50's?)

 

[da K.I.D.]

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.

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

congratulations to you both for winning. and for getting the point. and exiting this horrible horrible cycle

 

[aeghrur]

We can't prove that it meets your criteria
I have STATED THIS
THIS TECHNIQUE DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT CRITERIA OF 'OVERCENTRALIZING THE METAGAME'
It doesn't.

We are now stating that this 'criteria' is FLAWED.
It is imperfect, a guideline, not a strict rule to be followed and applied across the board of every game every variable every aspect

You want proof? Because ALL GAMES ARE DIFFERENT.

Yet even through ALL these different games, it has created VERY healthy metagames. Look at Melee, it follows this criteria, notice how good the metagame has turned out. Look at ANY competitive game with a healthy metagame. You know what criteria they follow? THIS BAN CRITERIA. IT'S THE UNIVERSALLY SET ONE. I don't care if all games are different because this criteria creates healthy metagames for any and all games DESPITE the difference. This criteria works.

You want better ban criteria? Here's what I come up with in the next 10 minutes:

Criteria on banning singular techniques:
-Doesn't allow characters to capitalize and win matches solely because of a programming error in the game.
-Doesn't allow characters to win by repeatedly using the same move over and over again
-Isn't a sure fire 0-death combo that renders human ability useless
-Doesn't allow a character to stall a match without fail
-Doesn't render characters at the will of the opponent for a length of time determined by the opponent (in other words, infinite).

As far as smash goes I'd put a % cap on how much a grab combo can do if preformed correctly; EX. Limiting the amount of % D3 can add to his opponent via a inescapable grab combo to XX amount - or banning it all together.

Go ahead - poke holes
But be sure to include examples analogies and solid reasoning.

What can you call a programming error? How do you know this is an error? This is purely subjective. I say, well, the wall infinites aren't programming errors, you say they are. So... no. Characters to win by repeatedly using the same move over and over? Metaknight, tornado, check out one of the old Espy vs DMK matches. One move, over and over, win. Ban tornado? Fine. On the other hand, you can NEVER win with purely D-throw because it will never kill.
0-death combo? Wow... okay, there are SO many of those in competitive games. Go whine to SF games and stuff too, whine on how "broken" their metagame is. -_-" Go whine to the shiek boards in melee, about how "cheap" they are. -_-"
The move won't stall, we have a 300% cap on it. Too bad, disproven argument.
The infinite has a cap or limit. Too bad.

You haven't dis proven anything
All you keep repeating is that it doesn't overcentralize the metagame

Disprove the fact that it's working successfully in bum's region

Disprove that it will hurt the game if it's banned

Disprove that rendering 5 characters warrants a ban

Let me guess 'it doesn't overcentralize the metagame'


WE ARE DISCUSSING A TECHNIQUE
NOT A CHARACTER

Your flawed criteria, if applied, should not be applied to techniques
It doesn't even make sense because 1 move can't overcentralize the metagame
Characters overcentralize the metagame

Bring that **** to the MK boards.

Start coming up with different arguments.

Okay, let me rephrase. I do not have to prove anything, you have to prove beyond REASONABLE doubt. I just have to let REASONABLE doubt be in the minds of the people. Guess what? There's doubt, and a lot of it. Right now, you STILL haven't killed off this ban criteria and you're only proving that:
A. You whine about helluva lot of crap
B. Your very ignorant about competitive gaming in general.
C. You can't make up a ban criteria either.
This overcentralizing thing applies to any and all things, even stages to an extent.
It's not a flawed criteria, your just using flawed ideals.

LISTEN UP
This technique does NOT overcentralize the metagame. If you follow this flawed criteria this move should NOT be banned.

I now formally present to you that this criteria is flawed. It does not, should not apply across the board. And last but not least it is not specific enough to be used indefinitely.

(also, I'm going to bed)

The criteria is NOT flawed. Your arguing against all competitive gaming communities if you think it's flawed. This criteria has helped create very strong metagames, compared to your "criteria" which was pointed out flawed in a matter of minutes. This is used across the boards, not simply for this board, but for all boards. What's good about the vagueness of this is that it leads to debate, it leads to specification for any and all games, thus becoming much more specific as it gives the room for all games to fit their situations into this. Your specific criteria is much more flawed than this. Just... stop...

 

[da K.I.D.]

looking at shadowlinks references to Sonic make me giggle.

just for those of you that dont know, contrary to what shadowlink says, sonic doesnt have any unwinnable matchups, and any time that anybody tries to relate the D3 infinite chain grabs to a sonic matchup, at that point you should disregard any thing that they have said up to that point

 

[aeghrur]

Note: Don't listen to KID's opinions on Shadowlink and vice versa as those two are very biased against each other.

 

[da K.I.D.]

so you think that Sonic Mk is as bad a matchup as D3 vs DK?


you make me giggle too...

 

[aeghrur]

Lol, no, I never said that.
D3 vs DK is much worse than MK vs sonic.
I just said people shouldn't listen to your opinions on each other.

 

[da K.I.D.]

even though you agree with what i said?

its like a giggle party everytime i come in here

 

[aeghrur]

I agree on the matchup comparisons.
I disagree that you shouldn't listen to Shadowlink.
I partially agree with you.
Get it?

 

[1048576]

I don't like how it makes characters that almost get infinited worse than characters that actually get infinited. DK-DeDeDe should be worse than Fox-Pika, but if the anti-ban has its way, it won't be.

 

[da K.I.D.]

heh.
i suppose...

now i want to say good shiz to those people putting up these massive walls of text, you shall break soon, and eventually, you will fall into apathy and just post one liners correcting bad info and giggling at the people who care about it that much to keep posting so hard.

 

[ShadowLink84]

God your posts are annoying to respond to.

Me having to speak to someone who OBVIOUSLY has next to nothing knowledge on competitive gaming is god**** painful. -_-;

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

Earlier you said it did not work.
let alone you are proposing criteria that is AGAINST this criteria.

(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.

it is arbitrary, it is inconsistent it has a million holes that you are too stubborn or too lacking in knowledge to understand.

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?

proposed what?

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.

Which is why i said go through adumbrodeus' posts. Not hard at all.

Give me reasoning.

[/quoet]
Read sirlin, get competitive knowledge, etc etc.
I have nothing that needs to be explained.
Its exactly like "don't get grabbed." If you do not understand the meaning of it the knowledge is right there before you.

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.

now you show no knowledge of smash either.
have you ever played a Peach using Olimar?
you MUST Cp that match. Every example I provided you must CP and you would know this if you actually knew what went on in the competitive community.

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./quote]
Which is why i suggested going through adumbrodeus' post history or Yuna (though he posts more often)

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.

Fair is PURELY subjective. Don't bring it up.

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.

uh lets see, because it would? Lowering the banc riteria means more and more can be banned. W banned this for those reasons we can do the same for these.

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?

hey guys, I don't wanna CP, lets ban it because don't want to switch from my main.
-_-;
Think about that for a second.

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.

So we have a solution but we'll change the matchup because its so harsh.
Crap argument is crap.
fixing matchups means we need to fix every other matchup because they force CPing.

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.'

That is your opinion. Being easy is a minor factor considering hw extremely limited it is.

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.[/quoet]
I suspect you have no knowledge of smash otherwise you wouldn't have "suspected" my xamples of anything.

stuff

You declaring the examples to be weak only shows your own ignorance. It is simple as that, you would not say such things if you knew ANYTHIN about competitive gaming in general or competitive smash specifically.

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.

ganondorf has an infinite on Wario.
So does 7 other characters.
Sonic infinites Wario on the edge.
Marth has a 0-death CG on Ness and Lucas.
So does charizard.
Pikachu gets massive amounts of damage off of one grab.
All his moves break Foxes and then he nets an EASY KO.

Ban everything that ***** Fox, Wario etc etc.

ban DK's death cmobo on Fox in melee?
Slippery slope you're going lower and lower with what is being banned.

Zzz

Now you are just trolling.

stuff

overcentralizing is the precedent.
You are challening it since it is proven.
You must prove your case.
Now stop wailing about having to provide proof and actually, you know, provide it?

stuff

Snake's utilt is broken, fix it?

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

Kinda funny, where did I insult you in that quote? Do you just hit the quote button and make random replies?

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

Where has it worked?
Why has it worked?
Has it shown any affect on the metagame?
yes? No?

Saying it works is ntohing if you don't state where, when,why and how.

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.

70:30 s a hard counter. That is when you MUST Cp or you WILL lose.
60:40 is manageable but again, you are stating we mus fix it because it gives the character a nasty matchup.
under your logic anything that causes a disadvantage must be banned.

More insults please.[/quoe]
Kinda funy how you say I am insulting you when I am not doing so but fail to mention it when I actually do.

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

Again you display your lack of knowledge otherwise, you would not disagree.

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

They have 10-20% chance of winning. How is that way better?
Thats practically a guaranteed loss unless your opponent maes a massive mistake again and again and again and again and again.

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?

We totally ignored it dude and did not bring up reasons why it shouldn't be bothered with.

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.

What makes a 95:5 matchup different from another 95:5 matchup?
nothing.

Regardless of the factors involved the nubmers come out the same, the outcome come out the same.
The means to which that ratio is made does not matter.
Everytime I hear that statements its "oh because its 1 factor" bg deal. it is still a factor.
A large one yes but still a factor.

bad matchups occur because of those factors.
So why do you deny this one? just because its a large one?
Thats a terrible fallacy.

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 %.

which does NOT matter in the scope of things.
Ease does not matter.
This infinite is VERY powerful and EASY to use.
The thig is, that it has next to no effect on the metagame.

Your own analogy works against you because it is something that is easy and UNIVERSAL.

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.

DDd's Bair is a very easy move to land.
MK's Dsmash is a ove thats very easy to land. Ban those moves because they are very easy to land killing moves?

there is no supposed to or not supposed to. If a move kills a move kills. It is simple as that, the effect matters most.

It does hurt DDD.

He admits it!

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?

So by your analogy ban everything untili it birings everything to 50-50?
let alone that DD wasn't given the CG by the palyer itis something that was already copied into the game.
This is equivalent to me and the two otehrs being born with the ability to teleport then having it robbed from us just because it isn't fair to the others if we had it.

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?

In a word

DUH!

This is why I sincerely believe you should not even argue because you have no knowledge on anything competitive.

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.

obviously I disagree. it does NOT affect the metagame.

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

Reading comprehension, learn it.
I haven't called you stupid, yet.

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.[/quote[ how am I putting 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?

Clearly you would know this if you had READ MY POTS.

I will make it big so you cannot IGNORE it like you have been doing.E. HONDA IN SF2 GOES 9-1 WITH EVERYONE WITH A FIREBALL EXCEPT DHALSIM

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:

They aren't all infinites. They are one tactic,
Do you have issues with infinite sin general?

IT KILLS 5 CHARACTERS.

Again in those specific matchups yes.
Otherwise you can CP.

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

yep you're a n00b.

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?)

My sentences got cut off in betweenc opy and pasting.

In melee Bowser users will ALWAYS be forced to Cp because of Sheik who goes 100-0 against him.

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

translation: I do not like the solution, I want to stick with my main. Sorry dude, we don't use the last resort button when we already have the problem solved.

Drop a nuke even though negotiations went well.
Cause it solves the problem!

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

Yet you neglect to realize that what governs them is the same thing.
the ban criteria.

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

Characters? yes it does. Akuma banned
Moves? Infinite dimension Cape. Banned.
items? banned. Causes the game to be focused on fast characters to maintain item control.

If you're going to keep digging a hole I'll give you a shovel so you cans top using your hands.

It doesn't. It's a base to start from - All characters are affected equally by items, savvy?

Um no.
Some characters obviously benefit fro items more than others.
bowser definitely gets more from a heart container because he is heavier ad can survive longer than a light character.

Any 1 character can potentially get lucky. This is not overcentralizing - we banned items to bring the game down to luck.

Potentially any1 character can get lucky, butpotentially,not all characters gain the same benefits norhave the same ability to tip itin their favor.
take on a Sonic using Bowser with items on.

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

um it does dude. Again you have no knowledge of competitive gaming otherwise you ould not make such state,ents.

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

Sirlin
Look
it
up.

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

CTRL+F
Then click on the last page or the page before it.
I am not bringing it up for you cause I am a lazy anti-ban person.

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?

You argue that thatovercentralizing is too broad when inf act, it has governed many of these aspects and much of the argument boils down tot hat one simple fact.
You argue that better can be done and yet you have yet to prove it is better.

I refuse to do "better" as you put it because you have not even hown that it is better!

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.

This is true, by definition competitive means we should be using 1 cahracer, one stage.
The reason that we don't is simply because there is some fun involved.
however, you are tihnking "because we allow different characters its okay ot make exceptions."
The primary reasno that we don't is because of those precedents that would be set as a result of the ban.
Again the CP system was made and has been shown to work well so why not use it?

And how have i ignored your case? You haven't proved it at all.

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

Old enough to know that a whippersnapper like you has next to no knowledge about competitive gaming.
Seriously if you don't even know how the CP system works you definitely should not be involved ina debate where you lack th e knowledge to participate.

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

Contradiction is contradiction.

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

here we go with you whining about having to prove your argument not doing so zzzz.

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

If it were 5 characters out of 8 then it would be.
removing 5 characters out of 37 is not.
Let alone those characters are still viable.

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)/quote]
um's region is known as Atlantic North and they get ban happy for many stupid little reasons.

Meanwhile you look at the other 4 regions and they don't have it banned.
We also saw the case in melee where they banned wobbling and it showed absolutely no difference in how other characters placed in AN and outside of AN.

This is the same for Sheik's infinite on Bowser in melee.
If they ban it they ban it for ****s and giggles. Not because it actually does anything to the metagame.

hell I bet if Yuna or Adumbrodeus felt like it I bet you they could probably come up with excellent reasons to ban other things based on the reasoning the AN region uses.

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.

No one has said they are infallible. What has been said is that the are proven, they are the precedent. you must DISPROVE them before we can acknowledge them as wrong.
Whcih you havne't evne done on the basic level.
Now I am going back to playing fallout 3.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Note: Don't listen to KID's opinions on Shadowlink and vice versa as those two are very biased against each other.

me towards kid? Nay
I am actually disappointed that he lacks the capability to address my arguments logically without insulting me every other line and strawmanning me.

 

[MuraRengan]

nvm this post

 

[Eddie G]

me towards kid? Nay
I am actually disappointed that he lacks the capability to address my arguments logically without insulting me every other line and strawmanning me.

Nay? Someone's trying a little too hard there. Speaking intelligently is just fine, but this is nothing more than theater. Just say "no"...

On topic- The infinite should not be banned. It is fairly avoidable, and the smarter players will find ways around it by picking other characters that do not succumb so easily to the infinite.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Nay? Someone's trying a little too hard there. Speaking intelligently is just fine, but this is nothing more than theater. Just say "no"...

On topic- The infinite should not be banned. It is fairly avoidable, and the smarter players will find ways around it by picking other characters that do not succumb so easily to the infinite.

But it loses its epicness if I simply say no.

 

[Eddie G]

But it loses its epicness if I simply say no.

Understood. I'm just pulling your leg.

Carry on with the epicness.

 

[da K.I.D.]

Me having to speak to someone who OBVIOUSLY has next to nothing knowledge on competitive gaming is god**** painful. -_-;

again with the insults, no matter what you think, its not ok to bag on ppl like this


it is arbitrary, it is inconsistent it has a million holes that you are too stubborn or too lacking in knowledge to understand.
but you will not state for him...

Give me reasoning.

[/quoet]
Read sirlin, get competitive knowledge, etc etc.
I have nothing that needs to be explained.
because you are so great right?

now you show no knowledge of smash either.
have you ever played a Peach using Olimar?
you MUST Cp that match. Every example I provided you must CP and you would know this if you actually knew what went on in the competitive community.
im pretty sure you dont play oli OR peach, so how would you know that? you are making assumptions

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./quote]
Which is why i suggested going through adumbrodeus' post history or Yuna (though he posts more often)
or you could just bottom line it for him.


hey guys, I don't wanna CP, lets ban it because don't want to switch from my main.
-_-;
Think about that for a second.
its more like, "this one circumstance shouldnt force me to switch mains."

So we have a solution but we'll change the matchup because its so harsh.
Crap argument is crap.
fixing matchups means we need to fix every other matchup because they force CPing.
noooo, we need to fix every match that is broken. but since there arent any other broken matches so far, this banning will fix all of the broken matchups in the game


That is your opinion. Being easy is a minor factor considering hw extremely limited it is.

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.[/quoet]
I suspect you have no knowledge of smash otherwise you wouldn't have "suspected" my xamples of anything.
well, i KNOW your examples are crap so there ya go.

You declaring the examples to be weak only shows your own ignorance. It is simple as that, you would not say such things if you knew ANYTHIN about competitive gaming in general or competitive smash specifically.
but i do and i still call your examples crap.

ganondorf has an infinite on Wario.
So does 7 other characters.
wario doesnt actually get grabbed.
Sonic infinites Wario on the edge.
Wario DEFINITELY doesnt get grabbed off the ledge without his jumps.
Marth has a 0-death CG on Ness and Lucas.
thats stage dependant, since its based on getting a grab at a certain part of teh stage.
Pikachu gets massive amounts of damage off of one grab.
but not a whole stock + an oppurtunity to stall up to 300
All his moves break Foxes and then he nets an EASY KO.
from what? none of pika's moves kill fox at the damage he gets CGd to


ban DK's death cmobo on Fox in melee?
you could fool around with your DI to get out of it, and if you say you just have to read right and follow DI than I say that you can do the same thing with fox and death combo DK, which makes the matchup equal.
Slippery slope you're going lower and lower with what is being banned.
but not really


Snake's utilt is broken, fix it?
please.

Kinda funny, where did I insult you in that quote? Do you just hit the quote button and make random replies?
you put veiled insults an ad hominem into most of your posts these days...



70:30 s a hard counter. That is when you MUST Cp or you WILL lose.
lol opinion, this is not true
60:40 is manageable but again, you are stating we mus fix it because it gives the character a nasty matchup.
but its still playable
under your logic anything that causes a broken match must be banned.
fixed



Ease does not matter.
yes it does.
This infinite is VERY powerful and EASY to use.
The thig is, that it has next to no effect on the metagame.
thats because it has already taken those characters out of the metagame, if it continues, nothing will change, and it gives the illusion on not having an effect

DDd's Bair is a very easy move to land.
MK's Dsmash is a ove thats very easy to land. Ban those moves because they are very easy to land killing moves?
they dont take minutes and they dont kill from 0

This is equivalent to me and the two otehrs being born with the ability to teleport then having it robbed from us just because it isn't fair to the others if we had it.
thats how it should work tho...


This is why I sincerely believe you should not even argue because you have no knowledge on anything competitive.
i believe you should not even argue because you are bad at the game...

obviously I disagree. it does NOT affect the metagame.
you say earlier in this quote that it does effect it, just not enough for you to care

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.

[ how am I putting it lightly?
by comparing it to the MK sonic match up...


I will make it big so you cannot IGNORE it like you have been doing.E. HONDA IN SF2 GOES 9-1 WITH EVERYONE WITH A FIREBALL EXCEPT DHALSIM
its not simply because of teh fireball though.
cus if it was, dhalsim would be 9-1 too


yep you're a n00b.
insult...


My sentences got cut off in betweenc opy and pasting.

In melee Bowser users will ALWAYS be forced to Cp because of Sheik who goes 100-0 against him.
not true, you are making assumptions again.



items? banned. Causes the game to be focused on fast characters to maintain item control.
whats wrong with that?


Um no.
Some characters obviously benefit fro items more than others.
bowser definitely gets more from a heart container because he is heavier ad can survive longer than a light character.
sounds like just another character advantage in the matchup to me...


Potentially any1 character can get lucky, butpotentially,not all characters gain the same benefits norhave the same ability to tip itin their favor.
take on a Sonic using Bowser with items on.
stop using sonic in your examples please



Sirlin
Look
it
up.

cus that guy is totally god yo. not to mention, he personally thinks items should be on.





This is true, by definition competitive means we should be using 1 cahracer, one stage.
The reason that we don't is simply because there is some fun involved.
HOLY ****!!


Old enough to know that a whippersnapper like you has next to no knowledge about competitive gaming.
just repeating it over and over doesnt make it true.

Let alone those characters are still viable.
not really

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)/quote]
um's region is known as Atlantic North and they get ban happy for many stupid little reasons.
than they would have banned MK by now.


This is the same for Sheik's infinite on Bowser in melee.
If they ban it they ban it for ****s and giggles. Not because it actually does anything to the metagame.
its not an infinite.

hell I bet if Yuna or Adumbrodeus felt like it I bet you they could probably come up with excellent reasons to ban other things based on the reasoning the AN region uses.
the same way i come up with perfectly good reasons to allow items hanenbow, and eldin to be legal

.

i am never doing that again

 

[ShadowLink84]

Kid make that more readable I won't bother responding to it. Then again you just rip thngs out of context as usual so no point in bothering.

 

[adumbrodeus]

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.

That's actually true.


You're missing the point, there are endless variations that the competitive standard could have, items on or off is just one of them. They're mutually exclusive gameplay options that we have to make a choice, whereas when we make a ban, we're choosing to interfere with something that is beyond the designed options, forcing a player to ignore a normally valid option.

For that reason, we need a pressing reason for a ban.

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?

Pretty much, that's part of the game design, so we can decide to turn it "off" for whatever reason. Well, maybe less of a problem, I'd have to do a little more exploration on the effects before I make that judgment, but it doesn't have the criteria that a ban does.

Regardless, the point is we're not saddling the player with an option that he is forced to ignore.

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.

Personal counters do not stop an over-centralized metagame, it's based on characters not individuals.

 

[TKD+ITA+Mar=]

What frustrates me when I read this, is it seems like we are arguing over ideals instead of the actual tactic.

 

[Brinzy]

No offense, but it sounds you just said nothing.

 

[Eddie G]

No offense, but it sounds you just said nothing.

...What?

 

[Wylde]

ShadowLink that berlin wall was beautiful. Perfectly logical too xD

really though, characters are going to have bad match ups, deal with them.

It's kinda like those players who 'DONT PLAY AGAINST META KNIGHTS'. You have to play them eventually, and you need to learn to get around it.

There are only so many characters in this game that you can main without a secondary.

 

[❀W.E.M.P.❀]

i believe in houston all infinites,CGs, locks, etc., are limited to 5 consecutive grabs,jabs,lasors, etc., then they have the be released. after that they may again be grabbed.

I believe.

not sure check houston thread, lol. and personally i am happy with those rules.

 

[Brinzy]

...What?

What frustrates me when I read this, is it seems like we are arguing over ideals instead of the actual tactic.

Or something.

 

[dainbramage]

You want our proof? Our arguments?

2) It renders 4 other characters useless past 129%

Sorry, I cant help this one.

Ban every kill move please, they render every character useless at high %'s.

 

[ShadowLink84]

i believe in houston all infinites,CGs, locks, etc., are limited to 5 consecutive grabs,jabs,lasors, etc., then they have the be released. after that they may again be grabbed.

I believe.

not sure check houston thread, lol. and personally i am happy with those rules.

LOL WUT?


THats rather...stupid.

 

[chazolave]

To me, I'm all up for banning chain grabs but I've seen what people can do. Some elements of the game should be banned but Dededes chain grab is programed like that so you really can't ban one move without destroying the character all together. I have heard of a 3 chain grab limit but, do know if its true but instead of banning we could try putting limits on it per stock. Now, it you ask me, the MAIN things that should be discussed is Metaknight playability for tournaments and Diddy Kongs "Banana Toss" combo for being over powered.

 

[M15t3R E]

To me, I'm all up for banning chain grabs but I've seen what people can do. Some elements of the game should be banned but Dededes chain grab is programed like that so you really can't ban one move without destroying the character all together. I have heard of a 3 chain grab limit but, do know if its true but instead of banning we could try putting limits on it per stock. Now, it you ask me, the MAIN things that should be discussed is Metaknight playability for tournaments and Diddy Kongs "Banana Toss" combo for being over powered.

We're discussing his infinite, not his normal chaingrabs.
Also, the SBR has already ruled on the fate of MK. And Diddy's banana toss combos are some sort of issue?
I never knew that.

 

[chazolave]

We're discussing his infinite, not his normal chaingrabs.
Also, the SBR has already ruled on the fate of MK. And Diddy's banana toss combos are some sort of issue?
I never knew that.

Okay, I see what you mean, that is really broken and should be banned. It only works on 5 characters but could really hurt a counter pick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UyrHXK36A
Video of it

 

[metaXzero]

We're discussing his infinite, not his normal chaingrabs.
Also, the SBR has already ruled on the fate of MK. And Diddy's banana toss combos are some sort of issue?
I never knew that.

Ruled on the fate of MK

Spoiler

For now

 

[pure_awesome]

I don't want to get any more involved in this travesty of a thread than I already am, but I would just like to say:

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.

I'm actually impressed with your tenacity in not admitting that you made a mistake.

To the anti-ban side: Over-centralization is not, in any way, the only criteria for a ban. If it were, items would not be banned.

We weren't considering banning Metaknight because he "over-centralized the game". We were considering banning Metaknight because he broke the counterpick system.

We are not automatons. We are capable of critical thought. We do not have to say that banning this technique doesn't look like anything we've ever done before, and therefore we can't do it.

To the pro ban side: How do you respond to people who say that there is nothing wrong with DK being relegated to being a counterpick character, much like many other characters in the game? After all, keeping the infinite doesn't completely remove DK from the game, it just removes him from the game where there is a possibility of facing DDD. You can still bring him out to wreck Metaknight.

See that part there, where is says "To the pro ban side"? Right at the beginning of the argument? In big, bolded letters?
That means the argument is directed to the pro ban side.

Since the argument prior to that is stated very clearly as being addressed to the anti ban side (in a similar, bolded fashion), I think it's safe to say that the two are directed to different audiences.

 

[cutter]

Actually, items DO overcentralize the game.

Because then the game turns into "Get items or lose."

 

[pure_awesome]

Actually, items DO overcentralize the game.

Because then the game turns into "Get items or lose."

Evo2k8, second match of the finals. Random example. CPU gets 3 items, Ken gets 8 (I believe.) CPU wins.

The entire set, nay, the entire tourney was filled with people who think like you and got destroyed by people who actually know what competitive items play is. If you want to talk about this more, please go post in a different thread.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Evo2k8, second match of the finals. Random example. CPU gets 3 items, Ken gets 8 (I believe.) CPU wins.

The entire set, nay, the entire tourney was filled with people who think like you and got destroyed by people who actually know what competitive items play is.

Really now?
If you look at the matches you will also know that ken's usage of the items was piss poor in comparison to CPU.

So it was a failure in Ken's skill with the items it didn't change the fact that both players grabbed items and used hem when it most benefited to them.
ken grabbed that many items to prevent CPU from using them because he knew CPU was better with the items than he.

The fact that Ken failed when using the items does not change the fact that items were the focus of the match.

If you watch the match, Ken grabbed a hammer and charged right towards CPU you simply smashed him for being stupid.
if Ken had equal skill with those items he would have wrecked CPU, badly. He maintained item control most easily it was his usage that was bad, it doesn't change the fact that items dominated the match for the most part.

I'm actually impressed with your tenacity in not admitting that you made a mistake.

if I see that I made an error I am not unwilling to admit it.
Show me the error rather than accuse me of it.
I am rather surprised that you would make such an assumption of my character having not interacted with me to make such a claim.

See that part there, where is says "To the pro ban side"? Right at the beginning of the argument? In big, bolded letters?
That means the argument is directed to the pro ban side.

Then I offer my most sincere apology since I did not see it.
I was responding to many other posts so do forgive me if I skipped if by accident.

I am not unwilling to apologize if I make a clear error but I won't be willing if people say I make a mistake and do not show where I made it.

 

[pure_awesome]

To say that items over-centralize the game is to say that items play revolved entirely around items, by definition.

To say that items play revolves entirely around items is disproven by the fact that you yourself said that Ken is not good with items, and yet he managed to make it to the grand finals of an items on tournament. If the game revolved entirely around items, and he's terrible with them, he should be out right away.

I mean, come on. You're saying that they over-centralize the game because "both players grabbed items and used hem when it most benefited to them". Well duh.

Anyway, this isn't the proper thread to debate this. If you honestly feel the need to talk about this more, please post in an items-related thread.


I see no reason to respond to your "I'm so hurt, woe is me" schtick.
I'll show you where you made a mistake if you give some indication that you care. When I told you you made a mistake, you said "No, you made a mistake."

 

[ShadowLink84]

To say that items over-centralize the game is to say that items play revolved entirely around items, by definition.

To say that items play revolves entirely around items is disproven by the fact that you yourself said that Ken is not good with items, and yet he managed to make it to the grand finals of an items on tournament. If the game revolved entirely around items, and he's terrible with them, he should be out right away.

I mean, come on. You're saying that they over-centralize the game because "both players grabbed items and used hem when it most benefited to them". Well duh.

Anyway, this isn't the proper thread to debate this. If you honestly feel the need to talk about this more, please post in an items-related thread.

DSF and several other good players were knocked out by CPU because they did poorly with items.
Again the fact that someone is doing poorly with items does not change the fact that items were the very focus of those matches.
If two players using MK are allowed to use the IDC, it falls down to who can do it best.
Doesn't change the fact that it would still cause overcentralizing. I'll debate it some other time fallout 3 has my attention currentl.