Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[1048576]

I don't like how the pro-ban side wants to make infinited characters better than nearly infinited characters. Dedede/DK should be worse for DK than Pika/Fox is for Fox. D3 has an infinite. Pika has a 0-80 with a Thunderflip.If the pro-ban side has its way, DK/Dedede will be 65-35, while Pika/Fox will still be 90-10. Why not just ban all techniques that give one character an advantage over another while you're at it, guys? I mean, you're drawing a ridiculous, arbitrary line as to what matchup ratios are unacceptable, boosting those ratios, and making the 2nd worst actually the worst. It's stupid.

So the pro-ban's response to my post is that DeDeDe/DK is impossible, while Fox/Pika isn't. Wow, just wow. Dedede/DK isn't impossible, it's just really hard. It's very possible to play perfectly and predict the opponent perfectly and not get grabbed. It's just bad; really bad. Impossible. Lol. Fox/Pika is really hard too. OMG ban counterpicking it makes the game unfair .

I mean really, how can you say it's impossible? DK does have at least one option for a given situation. His jab will always be faster than D3's grab. Go look up the definition of impossible.

Besides, impossible matchups don't break the game. Banning every tactic that is deemed unfair by some arbitrary criteria does.

 

[Brinzy]

DK does not wreck Metaknight.


Also, I don't care if DK could 90-10 DDD if it weren't for the infinite. In all honesty, Fox's chance vs. Pikachu is probably bleaker than DK against DDD. Infinite or 0-80%, it doesn't matter, because once the throw is over, those characters are pretty much dead. Same exact game here. Why would you guys want to ban one but not the other? You don't ban things because it's unfair for a certain character. I can't really think of any place in Smash where you ban something to make it fair. Please name one if you know one.

 

[pure_awesome]

DK does not wreck Metaknight.

Thanks for following the thread with utmost understanding.

 

[da K.I.D.]

So the pro-ban's response to my post is that DeDeDe/DK is impossible, while Fox/Pika isn't. Wow, just wow. Dedede/DK isn't impossible, it's just really hard. It's very possible to play perfectly and predict the opponent perfectly and not get grabbed. It's just bad; really bad. Impossible. Lol. Fox/Pika is really hard too. OMG ban counterpicking it makes the game unfair .

I mean really, how can you say it's impossible? DK does have at least one option for a given situation. His jab will always be faster than D3's grab. Go look up the definition of impossible.

Besides, impossible matchups don't break the game. Banning every tactic that is deemed unfair by some arbitrary criteria does.

didnt you want to ban meta knight?

 

[Brinzy]

Thanks for following the thread with utmost understanding.

You're welcome.

Yes, I understand that DK does okayish against him and that people use him as a personal counter. No, this does not equal wrecking.

 

[pure_awesome]

I'm impressed you were able to catch this part of my post-

Officals counters are not the same as personal counters. I know many people who bring out DK as their personal Metaknight counter.

While still missing this part-

That doesn't mean he has an inherent advantage in the match-up. Which he doesn't.

Considering the sentences were one after the other.

 

[Fletch]

Nobody is going to change their stance.

Why would they?

Why would you choose to be wrong on the internet when you could just as simply choose to be right?

Screw logic, screw valid arguments, **** all opposition -- you're right and that's all that matters!
Aint it?


Even if you disprove one of their points it's never what they meant.
And if it was they'd never in a million years acknowledge it.

Not true for everyone. I used to be very pro-ban for MK and argued a lot for that side, but had my mind changed by some good debaters and established players. Go check the votes and thread if you don't believe me. I would be open to change my mind on this topic as well if the pro-ban side ever brought up any decent points.

In this case the "red shirt" is a character. And there are plenty of reasons to not play a certain character.

Again, the "Glasses" represent characters. So basically saying change your character.

We know that not being Luigi will prevent Luigi from being infinited...that's most definately not a valid argument.

This is basically a debate about Being forced to counterpick Vs. Not being forced to counterpick if you think about it.

I get the point of the analogy. Again, you're playing a "competitive" fighting game (have to use that term loosely with Brawl) where every character is not going to be viable. You can't just make arbitrary rules to make characters more viable as then you have to keep making exceptions and there's no defined place to draw the line. You can say that infinites are where we draw the line, but then we bring in a whole other mess of tactics to discuss.

So yes, I'm saying change your character.

 

[1048576]

didnt you want to ban meta knight?

MK has no counters. A Dedede that's allowed to infinte does. MK does overcentralize the metagame, DeDeDe's infinite does not.

I didn't want to ban MK because he had a nearly impossible matchup in his favor, if that's what you're implying

 

[da K.I.D.]

im just screwing with you, i dont really care about this too much in general

i just thought it weird that somebody would want to ban metaknight but not D3s infinites

 

[camzaman]

i just thought it weird that somebody would want to ban metaknight but not D3s infinites

Yeah, MK is debatable, but I just can't fathom why D3's infinite shouldn't be banned, it's a no brainer.

 

[Darxmarth23]

doesn't the grab decay on samus?

yes it should be banned.

 

[gantrain05]

i don't understand why an INFINITE wouldn't already be banned, i don't care about chaingrabs or anything, but infinite grabs being allowed is just stupid imo, it takes the skill out of the game, i don't like the argument "don't pick a character that can get infinited" because there shouldn't even be a situation that you should have to worry about that, wobbling wasn't allowed in melee, why should an infinite chaingrab be allowed?

 

[MysticKenji]

Wobbling was allowed in melee in most tourneys iirc

 

[adumbrodeus]

Well it's hard. You asked me to go find one person who wasn't an idiot, who said that overcentalization was the all-encompassing ban criteria. All I could find was this, on page 241, only two pages before my post.
...

So I suppose that yes, I did spout total baloney, since this person is clearly an idiot.

"Pretty much the universal" is not the same as "only".

 

[gantrain05]

Wobbling was allowed in melee in most tourneys iirc

really? all my local tournies it was banned, but i didnt get into competetive melee until late 07 and brawl took over.

 

[Fletch]

really? all my local tournies it was banned, but i didnt get into competetive melee until late 07 and brawl took over.

Wobbling was allowed in most of the major tournaments, and didn't break anything.

 

[pure_awesome]

Wobbling was banned in certain regions, but they were a minority. In most regions, and in MLG, it wasn't banned.

"Pretty much the universal" is not the same as "only".

Universal: Applicable in all cases.

Meaning over-centralization applies to all cases of something being banned.

Meaning something can only be banned if it's over-centralized, or it wouldn't be universal.

Meaning it's the only valid criteria.

Also,

It's the current standard for, among other things, Brawl.

Standard in this case not meaning basic, but as a noun.
Standard: A rule or principle used as a basis for judgement.

Meaning all cases of banning should be judged on whether or not they over-centralize.


Why on earth you're defending the intelligence of a man who had the balls to claim that the forum (or at least, the people in charge of the forum) were wrong about whether or not Smash Debaters existed is beyond me.

 

[Brinzy]

I'm impressed you were able to catch this part of my post-

While still missing this part-


Considering the sentences were one after the other.

So DK wrecks MK without having an inherent advantage.

 

[pure_awesome]

So DK wrecks MK without having an inherent advantage.

Are you even trying to understand what I'm saying?


Diddy Kong does not have the advantage over Metaknight.

Ninjalink, from what I understand, uses Diddy as a MK counter. That doesn't mean Diddy Kong counters Metaknight, it means it's his own, personal counter to Metaknight.

Falco doesn't counter Metaknight either. But Falco is my counter to Metaknight.


That is what I said. DK does well enough against Metaknight that he can be used as a Metaknight counter. My point was never the DK was an official counterpick to Metaknight. My point was that even with DDD's infinite, DK doesn't just drop out of the game completely. I could have just as easily said that you can use DK as your Snake counter. Or your Game and Watch counter. Or anything.

Now for god's sake, just say "Oh, I misunderstood."

 

[ShadowLink84]

Meaning something can only be banned if it's over-centralized, or it wouldn't be universal.

Meaning it's the only valid criteria.

Actually that isn't what is being said or intended
The argument f overcentralization is a universal application ito when something is banned. By no means does anyone on the anti ban side intend to mean it is the ONLY application for when something is banned. It does make a large chunk of it and is a universal factor, but is not the only factor.

Just clarifying things.

Also,
Standard in this case not meaning basic, but as a noun.
Standard: A rule or principle used as a basis for judgement.

Meaning all cases of banning should be judged on whether or not they over-centralize.

Again you're misinterpreting his statement.
overcentralizing does provide a base because it is universal in its application, but that does not mean that will be the only factor.
its acts as a base from which the other arguments are then compounded onto, not that its the only part.
hence when dark sonic posted he said you hadn't refuted the basic part of the anti-ban argument, which is overcentralizing.
it isn't the only one but its the base of things.

Why on earth you're defending the intelligence of a man who had the balls to claim that the forum (or at least, the people in charge of the forum) were wrong about whether or not Smash Debaters existed is beyond me.

That is because Yuna is someone who is very well respected and in spite of being rather harsh in his responses, has shown himself to be very knowledgeable concerning competitive gaming and smash.

I am rather surprised that you are saying that people in charge of a forum cannot be wrong.

 

[pure_awesome]

Actually that isn't what is being said or intended
The argument f overcentralization is a universal application ito when something is banned. By no means does anyone on the anti ban side intend to mean it is the ONLY application for when something is banned. It does make a large chunk of it and is a universal factor, but is not the only factor.

Just clarifying things.

Again you're misinterpreting his statement.
overcentralizing does provide a base because it is universal in its application, but that does not mean that will be the only factor.
its acts as a base from which the other arguments are then compounded onto, not that its the only part.
hence when dark sonic posted he said you hadn't refuted the basic part of the anti-ban argument, which is overcentralizing.
it isn't the only one but its the base of things.

Context. That is my answer to your statement.

The first quote, Yuna is responding to someone who asks that the SBR release a list of all official ban criteria that should be considered when we think about banning something. Yuna responds that over-centralization is the universal ban criteria.
We don't need a list, we just have to look at over-centralization.

The second, Yuna is arguiing against someone who says this:

Btw Yuna, what makes you think the over-centralization factor is the only part of the criteria for banning?
There are more reasons to ban things than just over-centralization.

"What makes you think the over-centralization factor is the only part of the criteria for banning".
Only. His response says that he thinks this because it's the standard.

That is because Yuna is someone who is very well respected and in spite of being rather harsh in his responses, has shown himself to be very knowledgeable concerning competitive gaming and smash.

I, along with everyone I've ever talked to who frequents Smashboards, disagree. I thought Yuna was somewhat knowledgable until he corrected me in the Air Tripping thread by informing me that Ganondorf's DownB does, in fact, give him his double jump back.
But if you want to hold that opinion, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

I am rather surprised that you are saying that people in charge of a forum cannot be wrong.

At least go and read the thing you're arguing about. Yuna claimed that there was no such thing as a Smash Debater.

Go back one page and check the title under adumbrodeus' name. Shock and awe, he's a Smash Debater.

Upon learning of this, Yuna proceeded to inform everyone that the forum was wrong.

The people in charge of the forum can't be wrong about the name of something they named. It's like if I named my newborn son "Sean", and six years later I get a note from his teacher that says "His name isn't Sean, his name is Frank."


I'm not returning to this thread. It's pointless and I wouldn't be surprised if we had just got the thread locked. I'm honestly ashamed that I allowed myself to be dragged down to this level of immaturity.

 

[ShadowLink84]

stuff

As I said you are misinterpreting what he has intended primarily ebcause of his previous responses to you as well.
If Yuna stated it, it was most likely because he was providing overcentralization as something that is a universal factor rather than intending it is the only factor.
Using overcentralizing as a base of his argument.

stuff

Re-read yuna's statements. He takes the term LITERALLY. As in the Smash debate forum is a place in which you debate smash.
Thats simply ignoring everything that he stated dude.

I'm not returning to this thread. It's pointless and I wouldn't be surprised if we had just got the thread locked. I'm honestly ashamed that I allowed myself to be dragged down to this level of immaturity.

Bye.

Edit: I put stuff because I didn't want a giant wall of text. not in any disrespect.

 

[indianunit]

I thought ddd's infinite was already banned....

 

[cutter]

The pro-ban side is just coming up with completely ******** arguments now for wanting the infinites banned.

That or they just say "BAN IT!!!" without any logical reasoning whatsoever :/

 

[adumbrodeus]

Wobbling was banned in certain regions, but they were a minority. In most regions, and in MLG, it wasn't banned.




Universal: Applicable in all cases.

Meaning over-centralization applies to all cases of something being banned.

Meaning something can only be banned if it's over-centralized, or it wouldn't be universal.

Meaning it's the only valid criteria.

You forgot the "pretty much", which makes it standard for MOST cases.

Also,
Standard in this case not meaning basic, but as a noun.
Standard: A rule or principle used as a basis for judgement.

Meaning all cases of banning should be judged on whether or not they over-centralize.

"The standard", also refers to the most prevelant situation, for the exception, the rules for the exception can be used, but it's reletively speaking, rare that either the other criteria comes into play OR that there's any debate of note about things that fall under the other criteria.

Why on earth you're defending the intelligence of a man who had the balls to claim that the forum (or at least, the people in charge of the forum) were wrong about whether or not Smash Debaters existed is beyond me.

Because you're wrong about this point. I called him on that issue as well.

 

[Cirno]

I, along with everyone I've ever talked to who frequents Smashboards, disagree. I thought Yuna was somewhat knowledgable until he corrected me in the Air Tripping thread by informing me that Ganondorf's DownB does, in fact, give him his double jump back.
But if you want to hold that opinion, there's nothing I can do to stop you.

How to Ganon super jump or recover his double jump with a boost:

Method 3--

• Airdodge just before you land ( the air dodge should end just before he hits the ground).
• Wizard Foot/ Down B and hit jump.
• Profit. You have now super jumped using method three. This can not only recover your double jump, but can be used anywhere there is a flat stage, and even after methods 1 and 2.

The people in charge of the forum can't be wrong about the name of something they named. It's like if I named my newborn son "Sean", and six years later I get a note from his teacher that says "His name isn't Sean, his name is Frank."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That's great.

Maybe your son got his name changed without your knowledge after finding out he was adopted, and you killed mom and hid her corpse under the floorboards in grandpa's room, even though you said she ran away from home because she to lost him in guitar hero: aerosmith, basically letting the guilt tear him apart like he thought he did to his "loving" family.


The teacher's OBVIOUSLY a hero from stopping him from putting that bomb in you car.
You monster.
>_>

I'm not returning to this thread. It's pointless and I wouldn't be surprised if we had just got the thread locked. I'm honestly ashamed that I allowed myself to be dragged down to this level of immaturity.

You'll be back. They ALWAYS come back...
Kidding.

Though I'm quite sure you'll poke your head in to read, though you may not respond. Debating is never pointless, as it has to be a matter we need to come to agreement to to even be debated in the first place. We're just at a stalemate in a sense. Seeing as there isn't too much flaming going on there isn't much reason for locking. Not really immature either, as everyone for the most part is trying to come up with reasons for their views and refute others, it's the acceptance part we have problems with for some reason.

 

[Brinzy]

Now for god's sake, just say "Oh, I misunderstood."

I actually never misunderstood.

Yes, I understand that DK does okayish against him and that people use him as a personal counter. No, this does not equal wrecking.

Otherwise, I would've said, "DK doesn't have an advantage on MK, so you're lying!"

All I said is that he doesn't wreck him. Personal counters =/= wrecking. Yes, you already said that DK does not have an inherent advantage, and yes, you already said people use characters as personal counters. You also said that DK wrecks MK, which is not true, no matter what, unless something is discovered.

 

[gantrain05]

243]Competitive gaming is not about maximizing fairness or arbitrarily and artifically changing​

[/CENTER] match-ups.

If the game company patches the game, yay. If not, no Competitive scene has walked into a game and randomly banned things that were character-specific just to randomly change that match-up.

Just because games can be fair does not mean they must be fair. Competitive gaming has never been about maximizing or ensuring "fairness". Just to ensure Competitive viability. Tell me, can you name me on single game which has banned something such as this?

the truth is, all competition in a true nature is meant to be fair, if a competition isn't fair and is one sided or unbalanced due to anything but a difference in skill or ability itis simply flawed.
in defining the word competition i stumbled across this, also referred to as a definition
•to compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against others•
please note, when breaking this definition down to under stand it, you will find that it is to "measure one's self against others" another way to phrase this would be "to test ones skill against another"
upon defining competition i found no definitions inclusive of the word "exploit" but i did find a definition for the word itself
•In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers.•
i do not feel that when nintendo created brawl that they had any intentions of an unfair or unwinnable matchup. These infinites lead to only those situations and to utilize infinities is simply to exploit brawl, now you can choose to play the game and develop skill, and you can help others do the same by banning these things, or you can continue to exploit a great game, and leave a gap in competitive gaming and destroy any sort of skill that may exist, so in closing i would appreciate if you would take into consideration the information posted here, and from here on out, and do not, i repeat do not, simply state that "competition doesn't need to be fair" because as i see it, and as webster sees it in his dictionary "competition" is the measurement of skill against another.
thank you and good day

 

[gantrain05]

oh and streetfighter i do believe banned akuma..

 

[cutter]

oh and streetfighter i do believe banned akuma..

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Akuma is banned though. He had:

- Invincible legs
- Grotesquely enhanced damage output (because he's a boss character unlock)
- The game cannot handle his fireball or have a feasible way to answer it.
- Combos that put the opponent in PERMANENT blockstun, resulting in an instant win due to continuous chip damage

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Brinzy]

i do not feel that when nintendo created brawl that they had any intentions of an unfair or unwinnable matchup.

This is true 99.9% of the time for any competitive game, yet it happens. You don't ban things because of how the producers might have wanted you to play the game.

 

[1048576]

So the pro-ban's response to my post is that DeDeDe/DK is impossible, while Fox/Pika isn't. Wow, just wow. Dedede/DK isn't impossible, it's just really hard. It's very possible to play perfectly and predict the opponent perfectly and not get grabbed. It's just bad; really bad. Impossible. Lol. Fox/Pika is really hard too. OMG ban counterpicking it makes the game unfair .

I mean really, how can you say it's impossible? DK does have at least one option for a given situation. His jab will always be faster than D3's grab. Go look up the definition of impossible.

Besides, impossible matchups don't break the game. Banning every tactic that is deemed unfair by some arbitrary criteria does.

So, pro-ban, for hopefully the last time, why should DK/DeDeDe be better for DK than Fox/Pika is for Fox?

 

[Yuna]

Well it's hard. You asked me to go find one person who wasn't an idiot, who said that overcentalization was the all-encompassing ban criteria. All I could find was this, on page 241, only two pages before my post.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the English language had somehow changed so that the word "universal" suddenly meant "only", not to mention that once post later, I elaborated on the word "universal": universal for all Competitive gaming scenes.

Never once was the word "only" used. It's "universal" because it's pretty much true for all Competitive gaming scenes.

So I suppose that yes, I did spout total baloney, since this person is clearly an idiot.

Only if one is unable to comprehend plain English.

Universal:
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
9. Logic. (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
10. Linguistics. found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
11. Machinery. noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
12. Metalworking.
a. (of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
b. (of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.


Pray tell, where in this is there an implication that the word "universal" is a synonym to "only" word only?

It's baffling how often I, a speaker of English as a third language, have to pull out Dictionary.com against speakers of English as their first language.

Please explain to me how you managed to take me saying 'it's fine for DK to become a counterpick character' and turn it into 'DK mainers should not be forced to counterpick.

Please explain to me how you managed to misread "Nobody cares if people want to pick DK. That's no reason to ban anything." into "DK mainers should not be forced to counterpick". I never once said anything even remotely like that in the post you just quoted.

Do you think you can just rewrite people's posts entirely and get away with it?

I'm not going to argue whether or not you think I'm attacking you, because we both know it's impossible for me to prove it short of you saying "I think you're attacking me personally."

Seeing as how you just somehow misconstrued "And every character has some people who like them. Doesn't mean we need to make every character viable." into "DK mainers should not be forced to counterpick" in response to you babbling about some people enjoying picking DK against MK as if it were a valid argument for banning anything and how you misread "universal" as "only", I can see now how you could read ludicrous things into innocuous posts.

I'm sure this has already been said, but IC's wobbling in Melee was usually allowed until a certain %.

There is already a threshold in place.

We could do this with D3. I say just ban it. We all know Brawl is being played more online and how exactly can you directly speak with someone over that midmatch?

Nobody cares about online. As you say, no one would care about following the rules online and it doesn't even matter. It's not like there's even an online ranking system.

 

[Yuna]

Universal: Applicable in all cases.

Meaning over-centralization applies to all cases of something being banned.

Meaning something can only be banned if it's over-centralized, or it wouldn't be universal.

Meaning it's the only valid criteria.

Also,
Standard in this case not meaning basic, but as a noun.
Standard: A rule or principle used as a basis for judgement.

Meaning all cases of banning should be judged on whether or not they over-centralize.

Standard =/= The only thing
Universal =/= The only thing

I elaborated on what "universal" meant: Universal to all scenes, not just for Smash. As in, it's the standard for all scenes.

Speaking of "standards", here's Dictionary.com's take on it:
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard.
5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards.
6. a grade of beef immediately below good.
7. the authorized exemplar of a unit of weight or measure.
8. a certain commodity in or by which a basic monetary unit is stated. Compare gold standard, silver standard, bimetallism, monometallism.
9. the legally established content of full-weight coins.
10. the prescribed degree of fineness for gold or silver.
11. British. a class or grade in elementary schools.
12. a musical piece of sufficiently enduring popularity to be made part of a permanent repertoire, esp. a popular song.
13. a flag indicating the presence of a sovereign or public official.
14. a flag, emblematic figure, or other object raised on a pole to indicate the rallying point of an army, fleet, etc.
15. Military.
a. any of various military or naval flags.
b. the colors of a mounted unit.
c. (initial capital letter) a U.S. Navy radar-guided surface-to-air missile with a range of 10–30 miles (16–48 km).
16. Heraldry. a long, tapering flag or ensign, as of a monarch or a nation.
17. something that stands or is placed upright.
18. a long candlestick or candelabrum used in a church.
19. an upright support or supporting part.
20. Armor. a standing collar of mail.
21. Horticulture. a plant trained or grafted to have a single, erect, treelike stem.
22. Botany. a distinct petal, larger than the rest, of certain flowers; a vexillum.
–adjective
23. serving as a basis of weight, measure, value, comparison, or judgment.
24. of recognized excellence or established authority: a standard reference on medieval history.
25. usual, common, or customary: Chairs are standard furniture in American households.
26. manual; not electric or automatic: standard transmission.
27. conforming in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, etc., to the usage of most educated native speakers, esp. those having prestige, and widely considered acceptable or correct: Standard American English; standard pronunciation. Compare nonstandard (def. 2).
28. authorized or approved: The program was broadcast on the standard broadcast band.

Why on earth you're defending the intelligence of a man who had the balls to claim that the forum (or at least, the people in charge of the forum) were wrong about whether or not Smash Debaters existed is beyond me.

I was debating that there were no such thing as a Smash Debater, a Debater of Things Smash. Not the title. What am I, perfect? I make mistakes. At least I don't misread plain English.

the truth is, all competition in a true nature is meant to be fair, if a competition isn't fair and is one sided or unbalanced due to anything but a difference in skill or ability itis simply flawed.

Yes, but we don't ban things to make single match-ups better. Only if one character is unfair against all (or almost all) characters.

upon defining competition i found no definitions inclusive of the word "exploit" but i did find a definition for the word itself

"It's an exploit" has never been a valid argument. Is it not an exploit to edgeguard Captain Falcon's ****ty recovery? Is it not an exploit to chaingrab Fox? What constitutes a bannable exploit?

i do not feel that when nintendo created brawl that they had any intentions of an unfair or unwinnable matchup.

Nobody cares about Sakurai's intention. Sakurai wanted us to play 4-man FFA with all items on Medium for all we know. Should we make that a standard?

These infinites lead to only those situations and to utilize infinities is simply to exploit brawl, now you can choose to play the game and develop skill, and you can help others do the same by banning these things, or you can continue to exploit a great game, and leave a gap in competitive gaming and destroy any sort of skill that may exist

You want maximmized "skill"? You want "skill" to be the only thing that matters (for the most part)? Ban all but one character. Then it'll be all about skill and not at all about match-ups.

Almost all Competitive games in history have exploits in them, exploits that are not banned unless they break the game and make it unplayable (rendering 2 characters unviable =/= breaking the game). Roll-canceling, chaingrabs, character-specific infinites, MvC2 in general.

so in closing i would appreciate if you would take into consideration the information posted here, and from here on out, and do not, i repeat do not, simply state that "competition doesn't need to be fair" because as i see it, and as webster sees it in his dictionary "competition" is the measurement of skill against another.

I never said "competition" needs not be fair. I said that Competitive gaming needs not be fair.

However the argument could be made that this is in no way so unfair that other competitive forms of competition (<-- lol) would ban it. This is not a case of someone inventing a football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating all other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks.

This is the equivalent of one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating two other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks on the market. It's ridiculous to ban it just because a small number of other competitors become unviable due to inherent flaws with their design. If this football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks swept the boards had an unfair edge against the vast majority of Competition, thus rendering all Competition except itself useless, making the scene all about this one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks, then people would be discussing banning it.

 

[GofG]

However the argument could be made that this is in no way so unfair that other competitive forms of competition (<-- lol) would ban it. This is not a case of someone inventing a football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating all other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks.

This is the equivalent of one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating two other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks on the market. It's ridiculous to ban it just because a small number of other competitors become unviable due to inherent flaws with their design. If this football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks swept the boards had an unfair edge against the vast majority of Competition, thus rendering all Competition except itself useless, making the scene all about this one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks, then people would be discussing banning it.

This analogy was incredible. I lick your feet, Yuna.

 

[-Wolfy-]

However the argument could be made that this is in no way so unfair that other competitive forms of competition (<-- lol) would ban it. This is not a case of someone inventing a football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating all other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks.

This is the equivalent of one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating two other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks on the market. It's ridiculous to ban it just because a small number of other competitors become unviable due to inherent flaws with their design. If this football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks swept the boards had an unfair edge against the vast majority of Competition, thus rendering all Competition except itself useless, making the scene all about this one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks, then people would be discussing banning it.

Well put, Yuna. Well put.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Akuma is banned though. He had:

- Invincible legs
- Grotesquely enhanced damage output (because he's a boss character unlock)
- The game cannot handle his fireball or have a feasible way to answer it.
- Combos that put the opponent in PERMANENT blockstun, resulting in an instant win due to continuous chip damage

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Actually his damage output wasn't very different from others. Its the fact his combos were much better than everyone else's.

 

[WastingPenguins]

This is the equivalent of one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks beating two other football shoes/tennis rackets/swimming trunks on the market.

This analogy sucks. His two unlucky tennis rackets in an infinitely expanding market of tennis rackets are hardly comparable to what we're facing: an unlucky handful of characters in a small, finite and permanent lineup that WILL not and CANNOT ever change.

Hilariously enough, if there were two tennis rackets with a single unlucky disadvantage against one other extremely popular racket, the manufacturer of those two tennis rackets would be sure to correct the situation in any way possible.

f this football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks swept the boards had an unfair edge against the vast majority of Competition, thus rendering all Competition except itself useless, making the scene all about this one football shoe/tennis racket/swimming trunks, then people would be discussing banning it.

This is even more hilariously wrong. There would be no discussion about banning the tennis racket or football shoe. That football shoe or tennis racket would simply become the competitive standard that everyone used. This situation has played out hundreds of times in the world of sport. Again: the analogy sucks.

The analogy he was attempting to correct was far worse; I'll give him that. But I still don't get why we have to constantly try to compare this situation to prior precedent or hypothetical situations in Smash or any other sort of competition. Don't you people get it? This particular situation is unique. Cut out the false analogies and comparisons to situations past. They may be useful thought experiments but they can't usually stand on their own as evidence for either side because the situations they convey are DIFFERENT.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yuna's analogy sucks. His two unlucky tennis rackets in an infinitely expanding market of tennis rackets are hardly comparable to what we're facing: an unlucky handful of characters in a small, finite and permanent lineup that WILL not and CANNOT ever change.

Hilariously enough, if there were two tennis rackets with a single unlucky disadvantage against one other extremely popular racket, the manufacturer would be sure to correct the situation in any way possible.

The analogy he was attempting to correct was far worse; I'll give him that. But I still don't get why we have to constantly try to compare this situation to prior precedent or hypothetical situations in Smash or any other sort of competition. Don't you people get it? This particular situation is unique. Cut out the false analogies and comparisons to situations past. They aren't always useful because they aren't the same.

no this situation is NOT unique.

forget the analogies, just ask yourself "does this move over-centralize the metagame or break the metagame as a whole in any way?" and the answer is an obvious NO.
oh and before you ask why do we use that criteria, it's because the criteria WORKED in the past, therefore we stick to it UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE. and the things the pro-ban side stated are NOT proof of anything because "unviable characters" and "broken matchups", **** like that happens in fighting games. DEAL WITH IT. it's not universal, so learn2CP.

not banworthy.

 

[WastingPenguins]

no this situation is NOT unique.

forget the analogies, just ask yourself "does this move over-centralize the metagame or break the metagame as a whole in any way?" and the answer is an obvious NO.
oh and before you ask why do we use that criteria, it's because the criteria WORKED in the past, therefore we stick to it UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE. and the things the pro-ban side stated are NOT proof of anything because "unviable characters" and "broken matchups", **** like that happens in fighting games. DEAL WITH IT. it's not universal, so learn2CP.

not banworthy.

Who's to say that your criteria worked in the past? Plenty of other competitive circles would ban or modify aspects of a game with far less stringent criteria than "breaks the game as a whole." And guess what? It can "work" that way too! My opinion is that your criteria are bunk, which is what I'm arguing in the first place. Trying to tell me that it worked in the past (when really you mean that it matched your personal preferences) is just silly.

If the majority of the community have the same preferences, then of course they should be the community "standard". That doesn't mean I can't be a dissenting voice to try to sway some opinions.