Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[Grunt]

****ing internet.

 

[Xyro77]

Xyro77: 9th out of 97 entrants at HOBO 10 at Houston, TX on September 6, 2008
Xyro77: 17th out of 112 entrants at HOBO 11 at Houston, TX on May 3, 2008
Xyro77: 7th out of 97 entrants at HOBO 8 at Houston, TX on June 26, 2008
This looks pretty good.^^
Tudor: 25th out of 88 entrants at at Las Vegas, NV in May
Tudor: 65th out of 303 entrants at AxisGaming in Emeryville, CA on August 30, 2008.
and then, lol. sorry Tudor. XD

BTW I never said they don't matter, I said they'd still do just as bad as normal without the infinite, but I hope to be proven wrong.

****ing internet.

nah im not against you in any way. im just here to tell you that this ICG bullshiz is ********. Its common sense to get rid of it.

 

[Grunt]

It was in regards to hives post. (the BTW part)
and the ****ing internet was because of the random double post.

 

[Hive]

@grunt- its at least possible to win without the icg...
even with the cg its you have to space almost perfectly to have a chance... with the icg however you have to be aboslutely perfect lol you don't really have that chance...
i really think though that banning this tactic would be very helpful to these characters games... it really needs be done...
even if it doesn't help the matchup more than 100-0 to 90-10 still... who seriously wants to sit there and get grabbed a whole game unable to do anything? Its a ******** way to lose, trust me... ^^

 

[Yuna]

Well, the need for something to be game breaking is kinda silly, because it is the game-breaking things that advance the metagame, such as wave dashing in melee.

Breaking the game means it renders the game unplayable. Wavedashing did not render the game unplayable.

On the other hand, things that are matchup breaking are silly to keep in.

Why? They just break the match-ups. Certain characters have ****ty match-ups. Deal with it.

D3's infinite is extremely broken. In fact, it can't be used without breaking the game.

How does it break the game, really? I mean, any more than Fox's Drillshine infinite in Melee.

At least Pikachu can use a chain grab without breaking the game.

How come that doesn't break the game while this does? Because there's miniscule DI and you get out of it at 80%? Where does the ceiling for "gamebreaking" go?

But there is never a situation in which a D3 infinite can be used without breaking the matchup. Almost every poster on every side agrees it's broken. There's also a really simple way to fix the broken tactic - ban the infinite.

Or not. If it's not broken enough, there's no reason to ban it.

The problem with the "Does it break the game" arguement, which seems to be an assumed "no," is that there does not seem to be a reason to reserve the ban so rigidly in this situation. The purpose of that arguement is to enable the metagame to develope prior to banning something that turns out to not be all that broken, and develope strategies around it.

No it's not. The argument is that this does not break the game. It breaks the match-ups. Which was never a reason for banning anything.

Plenty of characters have ****ty 10-0s or close to it. Players have to either deal with it or take up secondaries or simply switch mains.

No one (credible) has ever argued that we won't ban this because there might be a work-around found for it later on. We're arguing that it's not ban-worthy, period. Stop making **** up!

However, no one is developing stategies to get around a D3 infinite, only methods to get around the D3 shortstep and the D3 chaingrab are being used. No one is even trying to get around it, and often I hear posters advised to simply use a second. This is in direct contradiction of the reason bans are reserved for game breaking tactics.

No it's not. You are speaking out of your behind again, making assumptions of how things work when you clearly have no clue.

Since the metagame around D3's infinite is not developing or even being attempted, the entire argument for why competitive communities choose to avoid banning for all but the most game breaking tactics seems kinda silly.

No one has argued this. Stop making bovine manure up as you go!

You're not even strawmanning anymore. You're hallucinating/writing fiction with your fingers. You're making **** up, claimings "the anti-ban side" is arguing it in order to be able to refute it when no one's actually argued the BS you claim we've argued.

Quotes or it didn't happen. Gimme quotes of (credible) people arguing this stuff.

 

[Supernova757]

Yes, it should definetly be banned.

 

[Yuna]

lol so many bad arguments from you lately ^^ seriously, almost all of the points you even DO make are entirely subject to opinion...
your logic sounds ivalid because 90% of the time they are lol... not because what you are saying is beyond most any persons mental capacity... <.<

Not only can you not write proper English with proper punctuation and proper capitalization, but you somehow read "Knowledge" (repeated several times) as "Mental capability".

People in the competitive smash scene are in no ways more anti-ban than pro-ban either lol

Nowhere in my posts will you find anything arguing this. You are, too, hallucinating.

And why shouldn't the people's opinions who are effected opinions matter?

I'm sorry, did you read what I said? They shouldn't matter more than anyone else's. What should matters is people's arguments on both sides, regardless of whether or not they are affected by the infinite. It doesn't matter if a random D3 is for or against the ban. What matters is if he can sufficiently defend his position and argue for it. If does not matter if someone does not play D3 or one of the Big Sucky 5 as long as they can argue sufficiently for or against the ban.

This is a debate, after all.

Gee, I wonder why! And where is your proof? Do you have any kind of proof to back up this statement? We're seeing a lot of "facts" thrown around lately.

No, but if they do, they'd see the validity in the arguments on "my side". I never said that only people with no insight into the Competitive gaming scene would want this banned. That was your hallucination.

Thats a GD LIE

Bowser, DK and Luigi, are all really good characters.

No they're not. They're mediocre characters. Who all lose to the Tops and Highs, anyway. Well, besides DK. He kinda stands a chance, but not at winning any major tournaments.

Your claim that Bowser and Luigi are "Really good characters", that's just hyperbole/a lie.

which is completely wrong.
Have you looked at any of the people who mains these characters??? How can you say that none of them has the capacity for viability when many of them clearly do in tournies??? the "these characters aren't good enough to care about" argue is horrible, please reconsider.

"Clearly", you say? Pull up the tournament results indicating this. Show me the many tournaments won by the Big Sucky 5 (because D3 doesn't count here). Are they winning significant amounts of tournaments? Are they winning big tournaments?

Or is it just mostly Bum and then there's some people going around winning smaller, more local tournaments?

lol i didn't edit it for you grunt lol I just didn't feel like getting into the whole small step cg vs. infinite debate that's 100% bound to happen afterwards lol if u want i'll put it back up.

Welcome to the world of Slippery Slope. This is what happens when one listens to the masses. Half the game must be banned.

l and what are you waiting on exactly???
I know plenty of people who main these characters and are tourney viable, so i sincerely hope that's not it....

Name them. And how well they do in tournaments. And are you saying the players are tourneyviable, not the characters? Because that's obvious. Brilliant players can take ****ty characters far. But they cannot win with them against other brilliant players wielding brilliant characters.

Stuff

Wow. One Samus got 9th. Must mean she's viable and can win major tournaments!

I'm sorry, how many Samuses are running around placing, oh, Top 5 consistently at major to semi-major tournaments again? Because that's how you measure how viable characters are.

 

[Xyro77]

Wow. One Samus got 9th. Must mean she's viable and can win major tournaments!

I'm sorry, how many Samuses are running around placing, oh, Top 5 consistently at major to semi-major tournaments again? Because that's how you measure how viable characters are.

i guess you didnt read what i posted.

Im not arguing how viable samus or any of the 6 are. thats not what this is about.

 

[Yuna]

i guess you didnt read what i posted.

Im not arguing how viable samus or any of the 6 are. thats not what this is about.

Nowhere in the posts I quoted did you say that.

You just said "Here, look at these results!". Why would you bring them up if not to say "Hey, Samus can place high, too!"? Especially when it's currently the topic of discussion.

 

[Xyro77]

Nowhere in the posts I quoted did you say that.

You just said "Here, look at these results!". Why would you bring them up if not to say "Hey, Samus can place high, too!"? Especially when it's currently the topic of discussion.

It was a post aimed at Grunts post. Nothing more and nothing less.

The topic of this thread SHOULD be about why ddd ICG should be banned. Or why it shouldnt.

 

[Hive]

lol yuna i can point out like 50 places where you say these things... you can't be serious..

also "the sucky 5" ??? lolol

also i already posted "proof" where they can be tourney viable? read much?
I liked how you focused on ganondorf as being unviable bc of small step cgs how about wario? i mean, clearly he is viable in tournies... if we are talking about small step cgs wouldn't that show tourney viable characters are effected??
which was my point. not that ganondorf by himself is viable...




edit:

-"Your" side has tons of arguments which sound valid... if you have little to no insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash. Likewise, "our" arguments sound invalid... since you do not possess the necessary knowledge to grasp their importance.

-Obviously, the collective Competitive fighting game communities of the world are all wrong while you are right, despite you having no insight into Competitive gaming! I believe this is called */"#(#*:ing arrogance.

-In other words, they sound logical to those who just don't know better, those with little insight into Competitive gaming and Competitive Smash, in other words, what I said.

-Because it would be selfish to only care about what directly affects us. And it would be highly stupid to rely solely on what the biased people which it affects think.

there you go, your own words, so stop saying i made it up.

your directly saying proban arguments only sound logical to those who don't know better and have little insght into the competitve gaming scene...
and it would be highly stupid to rely on what the people effected think of this...
i don't even see how you could argue that i interpreted this wrong your basically directly saying this.

regardless, these arguments are opinionated and irrelevant to the topic no mattter if you even do believe them...
so stop using them please.

edit2:

Not only can you not write proper English with proper punctuation and proper capitalization

also, if you are going to discredit what i am saying because of punctuation errors ON AN INTERNET GAMING FORUM so be it. I just want you to know how ******** that sounds though...

 

[Deadweight]

The problem with saying "DDD's Infinite = broke" is that he can only do it to 1/8th of the cast. The reason why Wobbling was banned in some tournaments was because ICs could infinite anyone anywhere from 0-1000000000% into a free kill. DDD can only do it to a bunch of low tier chars DK and himself...
Yes its a bad match up, and even if it was ruled you couldn't"infinite" them, a good DDD's tech chase can get the job done just as well.
Bad matchups exist
You learn to find secondaries to work with
You main Mario pick up falco/pika and stop QQIng

 

[bobson]

Yes its a bad match up, and even if it was ruled you couldn't"infinite" them, a good DDD's tech chase can get the job done just as well.

You can reliably techchase someone from 0 to 300% every time you get a grab with Dedede?

 

[Blad01]

Does a DDD vs DK match makes the best player the winner ? That's not sure at all, so it'n not competitive. Let's ban it.

Same thing with Ledge-Camp.

 

[dark-war-cloud]

Yuna, i agree with your points and all, but stop attacking people's grammar.
it has nothing to do with any crediblity (plank has won big tournaments and his grammar is terribad).

 

[Nic64]

DDD can only do it to a bunch of low tier chars DK and himself...

A) bowser is mid tier

B) even if it were only able to be done on DK it still takes an otherwise viable character and makes them unuseable, completely and utterly ********. at least with the IC's they have a terrible grab to begin with and aren't as adept at drawing people in for the grab, DDD gets grabs way too easily for it to be right for him to 0-death you even without a wall.

C) it's not as if banning it would terribly hurt DDD either, he still maintains an advantage on these characters and can do his running CG like normal, it just makes the game a bit less gay, I really don't understand why you'd want this crap allowed unless you harbor some irrational hatred towards any of the characters he can do it to.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Where's Adumbrodeus? I need to ask him when the status-quot changed to anti-ban having the burden of proof.

Busy weekend.

It never did. Burden of proof is pro-ban.

Why? You guys have a much stronger arguement than anti-ban.

In what universe?

Actually, their arguments are a lot stronger to people with only logic than those with competitive knowledge as well. They have not been broken with normal logic, only competitive knowledge logic.

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

And logic applied to the precepts of competitive gaming is PRECISELY what we are supposed to be arguing, because this is a standard for the competative community.

All of the other side's stem from a fundamental unnecesary assumption of how competitive fighting should work, based on prior experiences. You say there are **** matchups, and you can change that, but you choose not to do so because that's not how you believe competitive fighting games work from your personal experiences with the genre. Rather than sticking with the fighting tradition, one could use this opportunity to concievably mend 6 of those **** matchups in an easily enforcible way. Or one could stick with their traditions.

I'm not all that big a fan of tradition myself.

Because bannning stuff is inherently bad and it's something to ONLY be done in the rare occassion that we have an overwhelming reason to do so.

We already explained why, because it's too easy to gut the metagame if we're consistent with bans like this, and too easy to destabilize it when we're inconsistent.

Better to just not ban in the long term.

It is not necesary for any of those characters to CP to win a large tournament, though it is helpful.

However, it is still not necesary.

Several of them have hard counters, not just disadvantages but hard counters. Peach is, for example, a HORRIBLE match-up for Olimar, not counter-picking there is like running into a brick wall.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

The problem with saying "DDD's Infinite = broke" is that he can only do it to 1/8th of the cast. The reason why Wobbling was banned in some tournaments was because ICs could infinite anyone anywhere from 0-1000000000% into a free kill. DDD can only do it to a bunch of low tier chars DK and himself...
Yes its a bad match up, and even if it was ruled you couldn't"infinite" them, a good DDD's tech chase can get the job done just as well.
Bad matchups exist
You learn to find secondaries to work with
You main Mario pick up falco/pika and stop QQIng

What do you mean low tier characters, luigi is medium/high tier material and Bowser is mid tier, Donkey Kong also is one of the few characters that actually does moderately well vs GaW and Meta and he's not low tier

Wobbling was banned in only a FEW tournaments, there is one main reason why (similar to Ice Climbers Chain Grab "infinities" not banned now

King D3 range>>>>>>>>Ice Climbers range in melee and brawl
King D3 shield>>>>>>>>Ice Climber shield
Brawl shield>>>>>>>>>Melee Shield
King D3 camping >>>>>>> Ice Climber Camping
Similarly, Brawl camping>>>>>>>>>Melee Camping
King D3 doesn't have Nana to be beaten up to prevent grabs
King D3 survives to a whole lot higher percentage than Ice Climbers, way heavier
If King D3 had at least Ice Climber range, matchups would be a whole lot easier and DK wouldn't be a most likely 100-0 matchups, its just because of his BS range that it annoys people

and for other posts, Meta's infinite cape was banned due to infinitely stalling

and your telling us to main a secondary, I do, I secondary Kirby

 

[Dark Sonic]

I liked how you focused on ganondorf as being unviable bc of small step cgs how about wario? i mean, clearly he is viable in tournies... if we are talking about small step cgs wouldn't that show tourney viable characters are effected??

That's not what he said.

You said Ganondorf was a viable character. He pointed it out and said you were wrong (Well, actually he just said to prove it). He did not mention the CG at all.

 

[Plairnkk]

Yuna, i agree with your points and all, but stop attacking people's grammar.
it has nothing to do with any crediblity (plank has won big tournaments and his grammar is terribad).

since when is my grammar bad? lol

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Busy weekend.

It never did. Burden of proof is pro-ban.




In what universe?




And logic applied to the precepts of competitive gaming is PRECISELY what we are supposed to be arguing, because this is a standard for the competative community.




Because bannning stuff is inherently bad and it's something to ONLY be done in the rare occassion that we have an overwhelming reason to do so.

We already explained why, because it's too easy to gut the metagame if we're consistent with bans like this, and too easy to destabilize it when we're inconsistent.

Better to just not ban in the long term.




Several of them have hard counters, not just disadvantages but hard counters. Peach is, for example, a HORRIBLE match-up for Olimar, not counter-picking there is like running into a brick wall.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like the arguement of someone who is too stubbornly rooted in the past to do progressive advancement of the metagame. Unless you stop believing D3's infinite is broken, this does not make sense.

Breaking the game means it renders the game unplayable. Wavedashing did not render the game unplayable.


Why? They just break the match-ups. Certain characters have ****ty match-ups. Deal with it.


How does it break the game, really? I mean, any more than Fox's Drillshine infinite in Melee.


How come that doesn't break the game while this does? Because there's miniscule DI and you get out of it at 80%? Where does the ceiling for "gamebreaking" go?


Or not. If it's not broken enough, there's no reason to ban it.


No it's not. The argument is that this does not break the game. It breaks the match-ups. Which was never a reason for banning anything.

Plenty of characters have ****ty 10-0s or close to it. Players have to either deal with it or take up secondaries or simply switch mains.

No one (credible) has ever argued that we won't ban this because there might be a work-around found for it later on. We're arguing that it's not ban-worthy, period. Stop making **** up!


No it's not. You are speaking out of your behind again, making assumptions of how things work when you clearly have no clue.


No one has argued this. Stop making bovine manure up as you go!

You're not even strawmanning anymore. You're hallucinating/writing fiction with your fingers. You're making **** up, claimings "the anti-ban side" is arguing it in order to be able to refute it when no one's actually argued the BS you claim we've argued.

Quotes or it didn't happen. Gimme quotes of (credible) people arguing this stuff.

I got that from Sirlin concerning some Naruto game. Or was it you? Hard to remember.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I got that from Sirlin concerning some Naruto game. Or was it you? Hard to remember.

http://www.narutovolution.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50
4th post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSbpEz4SsOk
Banned because they make every move unsafe on block by every character, and would overcentralize the metagame around these 3 characters (out of which Choji would probably fall out for not being good enough) using these 3 specific jutsus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXsDve49-Wo
The exact same effect, (makes those strings unsafe on block), but only on a select few characters. Not banned because it in no way overcentralizes the metagame, but rather just makes a few very bad matchups (it's a free Ougi on block!!!).


One is universal, one is not. The universal one is banned because the game would become play these characters or lose. The character specific one is not banned because the game simply becomes do not play these characters in this specific matchup!, which while it hurts character viability to a small degree, it does not overcentralize the metagame as a whole.

Strikingly similar situation, wouldn't you agree?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Whatever. Infinite's still broken, and I still call for ban. Also, by that standard, I almost view the Naruto community as scrubby. We don't ban things because they are unsafe on block (edit: see marth d-tilt). Although I was referencing someone else, so I'm not terribly familiar with the Naruto community.

I really don't care about what broken enough is, because of the universality everyone believes the infinite is still broken. You either have to think that the infinite is not broken, or else it seems like your being inconsistent in not wanting a ban. It's either broken or it's not.

 

[xDD-Master]

Why banning ?

Limiting is enough. 2 should be okay /enough

 

[Dark Sonic]

Whatever. Infinite's still broken, and I still call for ban. Also, by that standard, I almost view the Naruto community as scrubby. We don't ban things because they are unsafe on block (edit: see marth d-tilt). Although I was referencing someone else, so I'm not terribly familiar with the Naruto community.]

Marth's d-tilt is safe on block.

You misunderstand. Those 3 jutsus made every move in the game unsafe on block. Therefore, if you do not pick one of these characters with these specific customizable jutsus, then their moves will be safe on block while yours are not. Every time that they block an attack this will happen to you.

The game devolves to these 3 characters (since camping is pretty much not an option in this game thanks to some very effective approach methods).

In the second case, Choji has a much more damaging varient (rather than just a normal jutsu, he gets an Ougi), but it can only be done on a select few characters due to how slow their strings are. Rather than causing overcentralization (the metagame would not form around Choji), it just hurts character viability (those characters gain a very bad matchup), much like how DDDs infinite chaingrab does not cause the metagame to revolve around him, but rather gives a select few characters...a very bad matchup.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Marth's d-tilt is safe on block.

You misunderstand. Those 3 jutsus made every move in the game unsafe on block. Therefore, if you do not pick one of these characters with these specific customizable jutsus, then their moves will be safe on block while yours are not. Every time that they block an attack this will happen to you.

The game devolves to these 3 characters (since camping is pretty much not an option in this game thanks to some very effective approach methods).

In the second case, Choji has a much more damaging varient (rather than just a normal jutsu, he gets an Ougi), but it can only be done on a select few characters due to how slow their strings are. Rather than causing overcentralization (the metagame would not form around Choji), it just hurts character viability (those characters gain a very bad matchup), much like how DDDs infinite chaingrab does not cause the metagame to revolve around him, but rather gives a select few characters...a very bad matchup.

That's just terribad logic.

Choji can use Ougi against other characters without being broken. D3 can only use his infinite in a broken way. So while banning Choji's Ouji would limit options that are not broken in other matchups, D3 would have the exact same number of options. Also, you can't ban an action against one character but not another, you have to ban it against all characters. Choji's Ougi could not be banned.

However, D3 can only use his infinite against the characters it works against, and every time he uses said infinite it is viewed as broken. It amazes me that the entire anti-ban side would actively defend something they themselves view as broken. At least claim it can be used in a non-broken way, but stop claiming that it's not broken enough if every time it is used it's insta-win. Not even IC's have that luxury - they require setup at least.

EDIT: No, Marth's D-tilt is not safe on block. The Marth boards have a detail explanation of how they get a four-frame advantage when using D-tilt on shield.

 

[cutter]

However, D3 can only use his infinite against the characters it works against, and every time he uses said infinite it is viewed as broken. It amazes me that the entire anti-ban side would actively defend something they themselves view as broken.

D3's infinites do not overcentralize the metagame; therefore they do not break the game.

Again, you fail to understand what "broken" REALLY means.

 

[Dark Sonic]

EDIT: No, Marth's D-tilt is not safe on block. The Marth boards have a detail explanation of how they get a four-frame advantage when using D-tilt on shield.

Do you know what safe on block means? It means if you use this move and they block it then you are safe. If you use Marth's d-tilt and they block it then you are still safe and can retreat before they can retaliate. This does not mean that they are in guard stun the whole time. It means that there is nothing in the game fast enough to punish a d-tilt on block (they can't do another one since they would get outsped, but that's not the point). By the time they drop their shield an perform a move, you can already move.

Likewise in many fighting games, entire strings are safe on block so that if you use said string and they block it then you are still safe and cannot be hit directly out of your string. That doesn't mean that you can follow up and apply more pressure necessarily, it means that if you see your string is blocked and you want to retreat, you can do so. Those 3 jutsus broke this system.

And the anti-ban side agrees that D3's infinite is broken in those matchups. But that does not matter, specifically because it is only broken in those particular matchups, and not universally (just like the Choji example). That's because it is only possible in those matchups (just like the Choji example. He cannot do that to anybody else). It does not cause the game to revolve around D3! It does not cause everybody to play D3 in tournaments and does not cause the game to become do this or lose. It cause the game to become do not pick these characters yes, but the same could be said about a number of characters in any fighting game. Mewtwo, Bowser, Kirby, ect. in melee. Ganondorf, Captain Falcon, Fox, ect in brawl. Pretty much everyone besides the top 5 or 6 characters in MvC2. Characters being made unviable by one or two really bad matchups...is nothing new.

Fixing individual matchups is not our job. Taking out one of the things that gives DDD an advantage against these characters, while not taking out similar things done by other characters is unfair. Just because they're "not as bad" as DDDs infinite they are OK? So because these few characters have it really bad, we are going to fix them? So (to quote another point brought up a long time ago), these characters are going to be given an advantage (the removale of a very troublesome tactic) because they are worse characters? What kind of logic is that?

 

[ShadowLink84]

Top 7 in MvC2 you mean.

Cyclops strider and some other dude whom I cannot remember were high tier.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Do you know what safe on block means? It means if you use this move and they block it then you are safe. If you use Marth's d-tilt and they block it then you are still safe and can retreat before they can retaliate. This does not mean that they are in guard stun the whole time. It means that there is nothing in the game fast enough to punish a d-tilt on block (they can't do another one since they would get outsped, but that's not the point). By the time they drop their shield an perform a move, you can already move.

Likewise in many fighting games, entire strings are safe on block so that if you use said string and they block it then you are still safe and cannot be hit directly out of your string. That doesn't mean that you can follow up and apply more pressure necessarily, it means that if you see your string is blocked and you want to retreat, you can do so. Those 3 jutsus broke this system.

And the anti-ban side agrees that D3's infinite is broken in those matchups. But that does not matter, specifically because it is only broken in those particular matchups, and not universally (just like the Choji example). That's because it is only possible in those matchups (just like the Choji example. He cannot do that to anybody else). It does not cause the game to revolve around D3! It does not cause everybody to play D3 in tournaments and does not cause the game to become do this or lose. It cause the game to become do not pick these characters yes, but the same could be said about a number of characters in any fighting game. Mewtwo, Bowser, Kirby, ect. in melee. Ganondorf, Captain Falcon, Fox, ect in brawl. Pretty much everyone besides the top 5 or 6 characters in MvC2. Characters being made unviable by one or two really bad matchups...is nothing new.

Has it occured to you that the reason the Couji example is not banned is because HE CAN STILL DO THE TECHNIQUE TO OTHER CHARACTERS WITHOUT BREAKING THE MATCHUP. D3's infinite's only purpose is to break matchups, the suggested ban has no effect whatsoever beyond those 6 matchups.

Why do you defend that which you know is broken?

EDIT: about Marth - http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204825

 

[ShadowLink84]

Has it occured to you that the reason the Couji example is not banned is because HE CAN STILL DO THE TECHNIQUE TO OTHER CHARACTERS WITHOUT BREAKING THE MATCHUP. D3's infinite's only purpose is to break matchups, the suggested ban has no effect whatsoever beyond those 6 matchups.

Why do you defend that which you know is broken?

Big deal its broken. We know it, you know it. Guess wha though? it only affects 6 out of 760 matchups in the game. Which means, your point is moot since it doesn't affect enough characters.

Why do you continously ignore these two facts.
1.How many characters/matchups are affected.
2.How strong is the tactic/technique.

If the answer to both questions is "to a arge degree" then the criteria for a ban would be fulfilled, simply because it would mean this tactic will affect the metagame.
DDD's infinite only fulfills number 2.
IC's fulfill number 1.
Hence, neither should be banned since neither are fulfilled.

We can go objectively using math to dictate number 1.
You have 6 character affected by the infinite. If we assume that those characters lose their viability in tournaments (which is untrue) then the infinite breaks 6 characters. This gives us roughly 13% leaving us with 87% of the cast unaffected by the infinited.
The majority would be anything abve 50%.

So mathematically it isn't fulfilled.
this number becomes even smaller once you realize that those characters are not made completely unviable in tournament play.
You have 760 matchups or so. 6 matchups affected.
that is less than 1% of all matchups affected.
Very far from overcentralizing.
So while it is broken, it doesn't affect the metagame itself.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Has it occured to you that the reason the Couji example is not banned is because HE CAN STILL DO THE TECHNIQUE TO OTHER CHARACTERS WITHOUT BREAKING THE MATCHUP. D3's infinite's only purpose is to break matchups, the suggested ban has no effect whatsoever beyond those 6 matchups.

Actually, he cannot do this to other characters. It only works on those characters. No other characters in the game have strings slow enough for this to work.

It only effects those matchups.


The suggested ban sets a precedent for other bans. Banning the infinite in order to fix these matchups would set the precedent for banning other matchup breaking tactics. Making a couple of matchups "unwinnable" is not enough for a ban, since all it does is make those characters unviable and has little effect on the metagame as a whole.

Why do you defend that which you know is broken?

Because it is only broken in the context of those matchups. And because a ban on it would set an unwanted precedent for banning other things.

EDIT: about Marth - http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=204825

Frame advantage: -14. It takes about 7 frames to drop a shield does it not? But your right, it's not 100% safe on block, provided that the opponent has a move that comes out in 7 frames or less with enough range to hit Marth from a perfectly spaced d-tilt. The only examples I could think of would be Metaknight's d-tilt and maybe Snake's d-tilt (uptilt doesn't reach and the first hit of the f-tilt does not reach).

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Big deal its broken. We know it, you know it. Guess wha though? it only affects 6 out of 760 matchups in the game. Which means, your point is moot since it doesn't affect enough characters.

Why do you continously ignore these two facts.
1.How many characters/matchups are affected.
2.How strong is the tactic/technique.

If the answer to both questions is "to a arge degree" then the criteria for a ban would be fulfilled, simply because it would mean this tactic will affect the metagame.
DDD's infinite only fulfills number 2.
IC's fulfill number 1.
Hence, neither should be banned since neither are fulfilled.

We can go objectively using math to dictate number 1.
You have 6 character affected by the infinite. If we assume that those characters lose their viability in tournaments (which is untrue) then the infinite breaks 6 characters. This gives us roughly 13% leaving us with 87% of the cast unaffected by the infinited.
The majority would be anything abve 50%.

So mathematically it isn't fulfilled.
this number becomes even smaller once you realize that those characters are not made completely unviable in tournament play.
You have 760 matchups or so. 6 matchups affected.
that is less than 1% of all matchups affected.
Very far from overcentralizing.
So while it is broken, it doesn't affect the metagame itself.

Everything effects the metagame.

Why the **** do you care about D3's infinite?

Why do you continuously ignore the fact that D3's infinite is broken, and you cannot counter me on that point AT ALL? Why are you defending something broken? Is it principles that makes you defend the most broken technique in the game? Do you choose to support brokenness because we've always supported it before? Do you really think DK has no better chance against D3 without the infinite than with it? Do you actually like the infinity? Are you that much against fixing a physics flaw in Brawl because you like a flawed aspect of physics? Why are your principles going against the good of the metagame? What is wrong with your principles?

I do want an answer. It makes no logical sense to me why there is even an arguement against a D3 infinite ban , as no reason is "it's not broken," but always "it's not enough," and "it's not enough" is not enough.

 

[Hive]

@shadowlink- your math is a little biased don't you think??
even with mk dimensional glitch it only covers, what? 35/720 then? that's still a low percentage according to you but that doesn't mean its not ban worthy, of course?
your numbers look worse when you realize that the most a character can possibly ever effect the matchups is by 35/720 no matter what...

6/35 or if you include small step cgs then 10/35 characters are effected.... that SHOULD be enough to warrant a ban imo...
I also don't agree with your idea of overcentralization as the only ban criteria... that somehow only if a bunch of people flock to DDD as a result it will be ban worthy??? Or the other idea of overcetralization that it won't somehow effect tourney results... which it has been shown repeatably that it will.
But to adress the first concern, say tomorrow metaknight found a new tech that made all of his matchups 90-10 in his favor.. EVEN if no one new plays metaknight wouldn't that still be enough to warrant a ban???

 

[Dark Sonic]

Why do you continuously ignore the fact that D3's infinite is broken, and you cannot counter me on that point AT ALL?

Because that is not why we ban things.

Why are you defending something broken? Is it principles that makes you defend the most broken technique in the game?

Yes it is principles. Principles that prevents us from arbitrarily banning things.

Do you choose to support brokenness because we've always supported it before?

No, I choose to support brokenness because it does not break the game. (lol?)

Do you really think DK has no better chance against D3 without the infinite than with it?

No one is contesting this, but that is not why we ban things.

Do you actually like the infinity?

I don't like it. But that doesn't mean that I won't defend it. Lawyers don't always like their clients. Hell, Lawyers defend people who they themselves believe are guilty. Personal opinion does not always dictate the stance that you take.

Are you that much against fixing a physics flaw in Brawl because you like a flawed aspect of physics?

If we fix this we fix other flaws. If we ban DDDs infinite against these characters just because they do not go far enough from the throw to get out, then we are favoring these characters over "less bad" characters simply because those less bad characters are not deemed "bad enough."

Why are your principles going against the good of the metagame?

Because setting a bad precedent is not for the good of the metagame.

What is wrong with your principles?

What is wrong with your principles?

I do want an answer. It makes no logical sense to me why there is even an arguement against a D3 infinite ban , as no reason is "it's not broken," but always "it's not enough," and "it's not enough" is not enough.

Because we do not ban things for being broken in a few matchups. If we did, we'd be doing a lot of banning, and we'd have many debates over what is broken enough in a matchup to ban, and we'd be saving some characters from bad matchups but not others. The game does not revolve around DDD and his infinite, DDD himself has many disadvantageous matchups to pick from for counterpicking, and you still think that the metagame would not survive if we do not ban this? This infinite causes a few characters to have bad matchups but so does Shiek's f-tilt, Pikachu's chaingrab, Falco's chaingrab, DDDs chaingrab (ironic isn't it), G&W's bair, ect., ect. Causing a few characters to have bad matchups is not enough for a ban because it applies to many moves that have already been deemed "not banworthy."

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think that to change sides would be to defend something I believe is bad. I don't worry to much about the system for determining how bad it has to be, that would be insane if I know that what I am defending is bad, no matter how good the principle behind it is. Edit: and I know it's bad because you know it's bad.

The reason is the D3 infinites are only of limited viability, so people pretend they don't do damage to the game.

Of course the D3 players are going to be biased. They're not the ones being tortured to death.

Dedede is already plenty imbalanced enough without the infinite, he doesn't need it. Get rid of it. You people are saying since Bowser, Samus, and Mario suck, we should just let them suck even more? Pathetic. You're just letting Sakurai's pathetic efforts to balance the game suck as hard as they possibly can. DK is actually high on the tier list and perfectly viable, and the chain grab infinite works perfectly against him. This sole thing will cause DK to slowly drop down into mid tier, if that. Do we really want tournies with noone but the top 7, 90% of them being MK and D3? You people make me sick.

 

[Hive]

how is it that most people here realize that DDDs infinite is ridiculously broken...
yet the only thing we can seem to talk about is if we should care about 6 characters or not???
most everyone can agree that this is a bad tactic, this shouldn't be an arguement at all....


also, I'm fairly positive it won't turn into a slippery slope... it hasn't where it is banned already, and most people here would be adamantly against banning other things related to this whether they are pro or anti ban here... DDDs infinite is really the only case that has enough support to be banned... no one is pushing for any other tactics to be banned...and even if someone did the antiban would FAR outweigh it anyway if what I've seen here is any indication at all.

 

[bobson]

how is it that most people here realize that DDDs infinite is ridiculously broken...
yet the only thing we can seem to talk about is if we should care about 6 characters or not???
most everyone can agree that this is a bad tactic, this shouldn't be an arguement at all....

I don't think anyone sane actually wants this tactic in the game or wouldn't get rid of it if there were no complications. The argument is whether or not it satisfies the criteria for being banned.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I think that to change sides would be to defend something I believe is bad. I don't worry to much about the system for determining how bad it has to be, that would be insane if I know that what I am defending is bad, no matter how good the principle behind it is.

The people you quoted are still missing one major point.

Bad matchups exist! Not every character will be viable in a competitive game. It is possible that a number of characters can be made unviable by a single character or tactic. That's just how gaming is.

But to save these 5 particular characters (of which only 2 or 3 would really become tourney viable anyway), while not saving various other characters who are also unviable, is hypocritical and unjust. In your effort to make these horrible matchups more even, you forget that other characters have horrible matchups as well, characters who are not being fought for and who will forever remain unviable competitively.

I defend the infinite not because I believe that it is good for the metagame (it really does remove 5 characters), but because I believe that banning the infinite would set a bad precedent which would justify a lot of unwanted bans in the future (which is bad for the metagame).

It's like how we allow the KKK to have gatherings and marches. Most people are against the message that they try to get across, but we allow them to do it because it is their right and taking that away from them would be justification to take it away from various other groups.

Remember the phrase "though I may not agree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? That's exactly what I'm doing now. While I do not particularly like these matchup breaking tactics, I'll still defend them because I do not believe a ban is justified (as many other things that I do not believe are ban worth would fall under the same criteria).

also, I'm fairly positive it won't turn into a slippery slope... it hasn't where it is banned already, and most people here would be adamantly against banning other things related to this whether they are pro or anti ban here... DDDs infinite is really the only case that has enough support to be banned... no one is pushing for any other tactics to be banned...and even if someone did the antiban would FAR outweigh it anyway if what I've seen here is any indication at all.

So we arbitrarily ban it because a lot of people don't like it, even though other tactics fall under the same category (matchup breaking tactics)? The pro-ban side would easily be able to justify further bans using this as a precedent.
"We banned D3 infinite against these 6 characters because it made the matchups really, really bad for them and essentially made those characters unviable," could easily be the precedent for "well, why don't we ban Falco's chaingrab against these characters, since it makes the matchups really, really bad for them and essentially makes those characters unviable."

 

[ShadowLink84]

your math is a little biased don't you think??
even with mk dimensional glitch it only covers, what? 35/720 then? that's still a low percentage according to you but that doesn't mean its not ban worthy, of course?
your numbers look worse when you realize that the most a character can possibly ever effect the matchups is by 35/720 no matter what...

Let me clarify then.
The IDC does affect all 720 matchups.
Simply because of its nature.
The IDC allows Mk to stall against every character including himself. If it were legal the tactic would be "hit the opponent then cape from one edge to the other repeatedly".
This tactic is impossible to counter and punish. So you are forced to use MK and perform the same tactic to deal with it.

You no longer have the capability of having 720 different matchups before you.

In the case of DDD's ifinite only 6 characters are affected.
You still have the other 30+ characters allowing for those 700+ possible matchups.
So unlike MK's IDC which does nullify all 720 matchps, DDD's does not.
it was why i said there were two criteria earlier for considering something ban worthy or not.

I forgot to account for it earlier in my math so my error.

Everything effects the metagame.

EVERYTHING IS THE METAGAME.
There is a very large difference.

Why the **** do you care about D3's infinite?

The bat swings both ways. Why do you care?
Simple, because banning anything in a game is serious. Not just because of what we gain or lose, but because of the standard that is set.

Why do you continuously ignore the fact that D3's infinite is broken, and you cannot counter me on that point AT ALL?

I swear you must be dyslexic or something.
Read the post again and then you'll find what you just said was completely, moronic.

Why are you defending something broken?

Why are you defending such terrible criteria? All you've said is "its broken, ban it" and thats it.

Show me examples where other communities n competitive gaming have banned something just for it being broken.
Find me an example where something that is so limited as DDD's infinite was banned.
Right now.

Is it principles that makes you defend the most broken technique in the game?

indeed.

Do you choose to support brokenness because we've always supported it before?

Correct.

Do you really think DK has no better chance against D3 without the infinite than with it?

Yep.
Refer to Bowser in melee.

Do you actually like the infinity?

Nope.

Are you that much against fixing a physics flaw in Brawl because you like a flawed aspect of physics?

I'll hit you with two things.
1.Its not a glitch. This is how the game works period.
2. Whether something is or is not a glitch does not matter. Its effect does.

Why are your principles going against the good of the metagame?

You... cannot...be serious... right?
I mean seriously, no one with half a ****ing brain will make such a moronic accusation.
Prove that not banning the infinite will harm the metagame as a whole. RIGHT NOW.

You have yet to prove AT ALL that the infinite harms the metagame as a whole.
Prove that this will affect all 720 matchups in the game. Prove that not banning the infinite will kill the competitiveness of the game.

I have yet to see the pro-ban side show this at all other than state "o noz those characters get ***** in a matchup!"

The criteria for a ban have ALWAYS remained the same because that is what is best for the metagame. You don't ban something on arbitrary reason because the standard resulting will place more and more things under the criteria for a ban.

Show that the principals used for competitive games everywhere are wrong and hurt their metagames. last I saw, no other competitive gaming community actually challenged these principles when encountering anything that acted like DDD's infinite.

What is wrong with your principles?

Now you're just wasting my time and I seriously am contemplating on clicking ignore just so I won't have to deal with your stupidity.
What is wrong with YOUR principles?
last I saw, everything else was against you. Now put up or shut up.

how is it that most people here realize that DDDs infinite is ridiculously broken...
yet the only thing we can seem to talk about is if we should care about 6 characters or not???
most everyone can agree that this is a bad tactic, this shouldn't be an arguement at all....

Something being a bad tactic or terrible is not an issue. We have many things in this game that result in bad matchups. We don't ban them because they don't do anything to the metagame as a whole.
That is what matters, the overall effect, not the effect on 5 or 6 character out of 37.

The infinite sucks ***, its a bad tactic, that is bvious. It kills those respecitive characters, but it should not be banned.

Hardly contradictory.

I would quote the rest of your post I myself am unsure of whether or not a slippy slope exists.
it means little those because the burden of proof falls on pro ban which has to prove that the criteria for a ban do not work. Which would mean trying to disprove many, many communities who eventually came to the same conclusion that the proban is arguing against.