Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[da K.I.D.]

the little head next to your name is wrong too

 

[WastingPenguins]

"How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first."

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html

I brought this up once before:

Can someone explain to me how the competitive PC gaming world has embraced constant patching to eliminate glitches and exploits, despite how this practice flies in the face of everything that Sirlin ever said? Can someone else explain how this practice, which can create sublimely balanced, intensely competitive games with vibrant, lasting communities, is such a bad thing?

I get it-- there's a difference between a patch to the game code and a simple ban rule. But sometimes I wonder: What if Nintendo offered to provide regular patch updates, with the advice of the Smashboards community taken into consideration? What if the first patch would eliminate D3's standing infinite-- truly eliminate it from the code, just the way that PC devs remove unbalancing exploits from their games? Would we embrace it? Would we grudgingly accept it? Would we tell them to shove their patch up their ***, we play the game AS IS because we are true competitive gamers, just like Sirlin said?

 

[Blackbelt]

the little head next to your name is wrong too

No, Mario is perfectly correct, thank you.

 

[Natch]

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=7612

I think we got what he need. The infinite should be banned. Read the OP, and all of the replies before responding.

 

[Blackbelt]

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=7612

I think we got what he need. The infinite should be banned. Read the OP, and all of the replies before responding.

It's called going to your secondary.


And Bridge of Eldin has another good reason (the campfest from the bridge breaking) keeping it banned.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I brought this up once before:

Can someone explain to me how the competitive PC gaming world has embraced constant patching to eliminate glitches and exploits, despite how this practice flies in the face of everything that Sirlin ever said? Can someone else explain how this practice, which can create sublimely balanced, intensely competitive games with vibrant, lasting communities, is such a bad thing?

I get it-- there's a difference between a patch to the game code and a simple ban rule. But sometimes I wonder: What if Nintendo offered to provide regular patch updates, with the advice of the Smashboards community taken into consideration? What if the first patch would eliminate D3's standing infinite-- truly eliminate it from the code, just the way that PC devs remove unbalancing exploits from their games? Would we embrace it? Would we grudgingly accept it? Would we tell them to shove their patch up their ***, we play the game AS IS because we are true competitive gamers, just like Sirlin said?

Just keep shoving it in people's faces. They'll eventually listen if it dominates the pages. I would like patches myself, so long as I don't have to relearn my favorite characters.

It's called going to your secondary.


And Bridge of Eldin has another good reason (the campfest from the bridge breaking) keeping it banned.

Actually, Bridge of Elden really should not have been banned. It was borderline broken, but not necesarily broken. See, that thing from Sirlin covers the Bridge situation too.

 

[Yuna]

Wow.

You are right, I can't argue with that bull****.

If how you feel is how it is, then I have to support the ban. Your standards of competitive logic are simply too dangerous to the metagame structure. You cannot cut away fractions of the cast like that and continue to have a competitive scene.

Why not? There are very often characters with ****ty match-ups. Why should we ban stuff to make them viable? And why would the game not be Competitive just because we don't ban stuff to make less viable characters more viable?

It's actually anti-Competitive to ban good stuff that's not over-centralizing or "too good" just to artifically make sucky characters less sucky.

sliqs bowser pulls top 5 at the majority of tourneys that he attends...

Are there major multi-state tournaments featuring the best players in the U.S.? Notice the use of the word "major" here?)

dont down play people when they are not here to defend themselves.
he got 3rd at the last only in niagara tourney and he tied with me for fifth at my last biweekly

Wow. A biweekly. Hoorah.

Feel free to show me some results that matter. Major tournaments, not small local ones and biweeklies.

and D3s CG is not "too good" on bridge of eldin, there a crap load of characters you can use against D3 on that stage, especially since you can just wait for the middle to get blown out

Once it's blown out, you'll constantly position yourself with your back to the edge? Because that's the only way to not get CG:ed off the walk-off.

And did I or did I not say that D3's not the only one with walk-off strats and that he metagame would become over-centralize around the walk-offs and camping them?

and it doesnt matter what you want to call it, your posts are full of ad hominem, and you straight up attack peoples intelligence, credibility, and ability to read and write english, and that is NOT condusive to intelligent discussion and debate.

Yes, but I present valid reasoning for why I question their inteligence, crediblity and ability to comprehend (and almost never question their ability to write. It literally happens once every 4 months at most) written English.

I argue intelligently about why their credibility & stuff is to be questioned.

It not OK just because you veil it behind eloquency in your words, it doesnt change the fact that you need to stop being so abrasive and act like the 23 year old that you are instead of just bashing people with lesser vernaculars than you

But you see, my most frequent "ad hominem" is questioning people's ability to read. Because a lot of the time, people manage to misread perfectly plain English.

Also, I believe you're using the word "vernacular" wrong. Either that or I just can't make sense of that sentence.

Yuna, a note: It seems that another cause of excess argumentation with you can be attributed to this: You don't have quite an eye for alternative interpretations of your words as would be helpful.

I have a perfect eye for such interpretations. It doesn't change the fact that most of the time, such interpretations are just plain wrong or illogical.

Notice how if it's just a simple misread, I'll go "Oh, you just misread me" and elaborate. It's only when people are being stupid that I treat them like idiots.

For example, a quibble fest went on for tens of pages about how 5/760 (yeargh don't nitpick the exactness now) is not 754/760. It was pretty clear to me that the issue was because you were referring to a count of something out of a class of 760 elements, whereas the other guy thought you were talking about probabilities (and accounting for obviously non-uniform distribution of characters in tourney play).

But it would be illogical to interpret my post as me talking about probabilities. Nothing in it spoke of probabilities.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's not what the problem was. He felt it was "distorting the facts" (or whatever he said) to say that it's 5/780 match-ups because the probability of going up against D3 is quite large. It had nothing to do with him misreading my post as talking about probabilities.

He just thought that the two must naturally be connected when spoken of, that it's some kind of crime to state the fact that it's only 5 out of 780 match-ups (or 5 out of 39 characters).

I didn't mention it because (a) I kept forgetting, and (b) my posts were huge enough without putting something I thought wouldn't get noticed.
. . . yeah neither of those are good reasons. But still something you could have corrected.

I did. I repeated what I said with different wording. He repeated what he said. I think you are the one misinterpreting here. The guy just lacked logic.

Similarly, you are either unable or unwilling to call up even a handful of alternative ways of getting the same point across. When X is put forward, and the other guy asserts not-X and leaves it at that, sure, it could be bad form, begging the question, or just sheer illogicality, but maybe it's just because there hasn't been communication. If one is so very right, one should be able to put forward a view that is disarming in its simplicity and soundness.

Why should I have to keep repeating myself with different wording and dumb it down just because some people are too dumb to understand plain English? It's not like I'm spewing out Dickensian or Shakespearean prose. I keep the language simple for the most part because I know there are many yutzes out there.

As well, if you thought more about why someone is saying something and tried to get under that, try to get right to denying some false belief they have giving rise to the one they're stating, that could cut shouting matches short too.

I do this. All the time.

You just weren't around then. Also, most of the people I'm currently arguing with, I have a history with. I know how they think. And many of them have a chronic inability to learn and to throw away their false beliefs.

Yes Yuna, there are exceptions to everything, if your as logical as you say, then you should know that. NOTHING is set in stone, Einstein saw to that.

Why did you quote someone who wasn't even me when replying to me?

If Bridge of Eldin is Counterpick, then we now have a stage where MK is terrible, its his worst stage aside from New Pork City, or so I hear.

So to combat an evil, we're giving in to a greater evil? Good thinking. Also, MK is perfectly beatable despite BoE being banned.

And QFT for the last paragraph, and thats the reason why everyone hates Yuna.

No, that's the reason why the idiots who feel my ire hate me. Because they will know I consider them idiots. Those who aren't idiots don't feel my ire. They either dislike my way of handling things, are indifferent or, gasp, love it. There are many who, just like me, are highly intolerant at the level of stupidity currently reigning SWF and who wants people to tell it like it is, to not treat each user like royalty.

Respect is something you earn. I start out respecting everyone I meet. But if they show themselves to be stupid, then I have no reason to be nice to them.

 

[aeghrur]

I'm so weird, lol.
I have my idiotic moments.
I don't tolerate idiocy most of the time, but I also dislike Yuna's way of handeling things.

 

[Yuna]

It'd not about dealing with it.

No, because you choose not to. You'd rather just ban half of the metagame instead.

This attitude is simply too dangerous to be the accepted norm. It is self destructive to the playability and longevity of the game.

I'm sorry, how many Competitive fighting game scenes have you been a part of again? How long have you been a part of Competitive gaming again?

The stuff I say is universal for all Competitive fighting games. Guess what, Melee had 7+ years and is still going strong, the various Street Fighter games are still going strong. Soul Calibur, Tekken. They all survived this dangerous attitude you claim is self-destructive to the playability and longevity of the metagame.

I argue that banning things to artifically change match-ups is destructive to the playability of the metagame. Removing aspects of the game so that bad characters are less bad. At least without banning, you still have the choice of playing as the sucky characters. Banning techniques and characters is just that, banning techniques.

Oh no no no, you misunderstand me. I call Yuna illogical as he states everything as solid fact, when there is always an exception. (Like Yuna saying Bowser isn't tourny viable, yet there is someone who does very very well with Bowser. And if Gimpy still played Bowser...Watch out!)

I'm sorry, this is proof of me being illogical? Wow, one or two Bowsers is able to place (kinda) at local and minor tournaments! Wow! Some of the best players in the U.S. (and by that I mean the very best) can place Top 5 (but almost never win) as a lower tier!

They must not suck! But then why aren't they winning even biweeklies or smaller tournaments? Why are they only placing Top 5? Also, why only 1-2-3 people? Why not 20? You see, this is because Bowser is unviable. In the hands of the very best players in the world, he can occasionally place high... that is, unless he has to face some of the other best players in the world wielding much better characters.

My logic >>>>> Your logic.

your point is....? pro-ban people said DK isn't viable. yet people still win with him. sure, Yuna might be wrong in this instance, but i don't see whether this matters in the debate. (though im not quite sure what they were arguing as i haven't read that whole conversation.)

I never said DK isn't viable. When did I ever say that?

Well, to put it simply, Yuna's attitude is self-destructive. It's really clear - Yuna accepts conditions of the metagame that are not necesarily decided as "set," and his attitude in that post sets a precident for the systematic destruction of the metagame through similar tactics in future titles.

Guess what, it's not really "my" attitude. It's the attitude of the Competitive world at large. But you couldn't possibly know that because you have absolutely no insight into how Competitive gaming works. My "attitude" exists in all communities. In fact, it's very popular.

And yet so many games with broken **** on the same level as this or close to it still had or still have long lifespans spanning possibly a decade!

But again, it's understandable that you wouldn't know that since you have no insight into Competitive gaming.

I didn't create this proposed precedence. It already exists.

What happens in SSB4 when 2 characters can do that to 10 characters of the cast (both don't get the same ten)? SSB5 when a new tech is discovered that eliminates half the cast? The precident Yuna sets is too dangerous.

Then it might be over-centralizing and we'd ban it. This isn't.

True, but I find Yuna's more dangerous, as it has immediate reprocutions.

But you also thought Captain Falcon was viable, argued that Pokémon Trainer would most probably become a Meta Knight counter, argued passionately for banning Meta Knight and are now magically against banning him seemingly for no reason other than that he wasn't banned by the SBR and you don't want to look bad.

Actually, the dangerous precident is the "Suck 5" precident. It sets the understanding that characters who are victims of character-specific infinities inherently suck, and should not be helped because they wouldn't be all that viable anyway.

The danger in Yuna's precident has a lot more to do with his insistence that those characters aren't very good, as if that has anything to do with anything.

It already exists. It's existed in Brawl for months. I didn't set it, it's already been set. Since the day Brawl was released.

The danger in Yuna's precident has a lot more to do with his insistence that those characters aren't very good, as if that has anything to do with anything.

No, no. I've never argued that the characters aren't very good even without the infinite. That was just me counter-arguing some idiot claiming that the infinite should be banned because every single one of the infinitable characters is viable without the infinite.

I countered with "O RLY? Since when is Bowser, Samus, Mario and to an extent Luigi viable" + "It does not matter!". Stop strawmanning my posts.

Now let's discuss legalizing walled and walk-off stages for all the same reasons, because a ban is the last resort, which was a fact the SBR ignored on these stages. Then the there will be complete consistentency with the understanding of what warrents a ban, reguardless of the side everyone picks.

God, you don't read anything people write, do you? It's not like we've never had walk-offs to deal with before! Guess what, we did. In Melee.

We had 7+ years of walk-offs. We know how they work, we know what they do, we know what will happen if they are allowed.

We know why they are broken going into Brawl. And then Brawl showed us walk-offs can still be abused in the pretty much the same ways as in Melee.

Of course, you wouldn't know this either because you didn't actually play Melee Competitively and seem unable to take in anything I tell you about Melee (for one thing, I told you about this specific thing, walk-offs in Melee) just yesterday or the day before that.

Can someone explain to me how the competitive PC gaming world has embraced constant patching to eliminate glitches and exploits, despite how this practice flies in the face of everything that Sirlin ever said? Can someone else explain how this practice, which can create sublimely balanced, intensely competitive games with vibrant, lasting communities, is such a bad thing?

Because they are playing the game they are given. The game creators are doing the patching based on extensive testing. The game creators are in essence realeasing new versions of the game for us with the explicit goal of objectively balancing the game through extensive testing among them. It's also their game, they control it.

It's not us walking around randomly banning things to suit our image. That would be the players distorting a game into their own twisted image of it. And if we have to do that to make it playable, why play it? Then we'd just be fanboys sticking around for fan service instead of Competitive gamers who want a Competitive game.

If Brawl is so broken we have to ban one jillion things or it'll be unplayable, then let's take Sirlin's (since THC worships Sirlin) advice and just not play it.

Are you even aware of that Soul Calibur IV is getting quasi-regular patches?

 

[adumbrodeus]

I brought this up once before:

Can someone explain to me how the competitive PC gaming world has embraced constant patching to eliminate glitches and exploits, despite how this practice flies in the face of everything that Sirlin ever said? Can someone else explain how this practice, which can create sublimely balanced, intensely competitive games with vibrant, lasting communities, is such a bad thing?

I get it-- there's a difference between a patch to the game code and a simple ban rule. But sometimes I wonder: What if Nintendo offered to provide regular patch updates, with the advice of the Smashboards community taken into consideration? What if the first patch would eliminate D3's standing infinite-- truly eliminate it from the code, just the way that PC devs remove unbalancing exploits from their games? Would we embrace it? Would we grudgingly accept it? Would we tell them to shove their patch up their ***, we play the game AS IS because we are true competitive gamers, just like Sirlin said?

I addressed this before.

Two major differences:

1. The standard is forced upon us by the company.

2. The option is not in the game so it's not like we're ignoring it, it's not there. Therefore the game isn't cluttered too many rules to make it worthwhile. So, generally speaking, we're not removing depth like with a ban, we're merely balancing it.


Unfortunately, bans have the overall issue of us being unable to enforce standards if it's community created and not distributed by the game company, that's the main reason the official standard isn't say... the one with wave-dashing and l-canceling.

 

[NeoCrono]

I'm so weird, lol.
I have my idiotic moments.
I don't tolerate idiocy most of the time, but I also dislike Yuna's way of handeling things.

Yuna has a way of being mean and condescending, but it gets his point across. Yuna is a great debater so I really cant be mad at him when he points out flaws in other peoples arguments and makes them feel stupid for committing such and error.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna has a way of being mean and condescending, but it gets his point across. Yuna is a great debater so I really cant be mad at him when he points out flaws in other peoples arguments and makes them feel stupid for committing such and error.

The thing is that I'm only mean and condescending to people who I believe niceness will have no effect on. Way too many people ignore perfectly valid points just because.

At least if I'm mean and condescending, they'll take note of me and not ignore me just because they don't want to even try to refute my arguments.

Trust me. I tried being nice. For the first 3 months of Brawl's lifespan, I was nice. There was once a thread about items where I was nice for a guy for 20+ pages. What happened? He ignored every single valid point he could not refute, regurgitated the same BS and declared himself the winner.

It wasn't just him. It was an epidemic. At least when I started being mean, the same people/same kinds of people started replying more. They feel mad and want to prove me wrong so they can best me. It's better than them just ignoring perfectly valid posts.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

hmm... I just noticed that yunas way of describing the competitive scene in smash is a big reason that one evo guy decided on using Items.

Yuna sometimes your posts sound like: you joined in 08 I didn't so I'm right. Might not be trying to come off like that but you are.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^So we should completely ignore the past experiences of highly successful competitive games like Street Fighter, Guilty Gear, various Naruto games (NGNT4 was really good), Marvel vs Capcom, Soul Calibur 2, and Melee?

Some of which Yuna has actually....played competitively?

 

[swordgard]

Arturito, were not bashing people from 2008 because they joined in 2008...Were bashing most 2008 people cause they speak like they know something when they do reccurent(sp) fallacies and believe theory=practice. They also usually fail at bringing in facts, only biased opinions. I dont mind listening to knowledgefull 2008 just like any other year, i hate listening to scrubs from any year actually. 2008 just seems to have 3 times as many scrubs.

 

[Yuna]

hmm... I just noticed that yunas way of describing the competitive scene in smash is a big reason that one evo guy decided on using Items.

Great logic for him if that it's true! Especially since I've never ever debated against him (before he decided to use items at EVO).

Yuna sometimes your posts sound like: you joined in 08 I didn't so I'm right. Might not be trying to come off like that but you are.

I've never held that against someone. If someone shows themselves to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable, I could care less when they joined.

I have no problem with new players. I have a problem with players new to the scene, Competitive gaming or even the game who think, act and debate as if they know everything there is to know about all that despite facing opposition from obviously more knowledgeable and experienced players.

The most frustrating part of it is watching, day in and day out, people who have never even been a part of a Competitive scene besides their now limited experience with Competitive Brawl claim to know how Competitive gaming works, saying "In Competitive gaming, we do this and that because of this and that" when they couldn't possibly know that since they've never actually played any other games Competitively.

Not only have I been a part of several scenes in the past (never becoming very good at most of their games, but that's neither here nor there), I happen to be acquainted with the very best of every single major Competitive fighting game scene in Sweden. We hang out sometimes at events and I've learned a lot about their games, even games I do not even play.

Needless to say, I've got more experience and knowledge of Competitive gaming come out of my left pinky than most people here on SWF, yet they come to me and claim I'm wrong and they're right when the extent of their insight into Competitive gaming is limited to maybe 5 tournaments and what some guy whispered in their ear.

And they're so stubborn about it! When I tell them they're wrong and explain how things really are, they insist I'm wrong and they are right. Or in some cases, they insist the entire Competitive gaming world at large is wrong and should change because obviously their way is better than decades of Competitive gaming of trial-and-error and policy-making!

And it's not always a matter of opinions. Oftentimes, it's a matter of people just not knowing their ****. They heard something from someone random or read it on some forum or whatever. Or they hallucinated it in their head. But there's just so much factual stupidity running amok on SWF it gives me headaches. I mean, some guy just claimed that Peach was "unbeatable" at the beginning of Melee's lifespan.

Now we know that's not true since we have historic data (websites, this forum, the Wiki) showing is this is a blatant lie. And I wonder: What could possibly make this guy think this? Where did he get his data from? So many people use faulty facts and data to base their opinions and arguments on.

And I believe (and it's sadly probably true) many people just make **** up as they go. Who needs fact when you can just make stuff up?

"Would it help my argument if I claim X was true? Probably, so let's make **** up!"

I was new to Competitive gaming once. I was just awesome enough to never have argued for items in Competitive play, whined about banning stuff, claimed to have known stuff I have no clue of and debated things I have no place debating. I'm just that awesome.

Some of which Yuna has actually....played competitively?

Every single one of them (well, not so much 3S, but I can kinda play as Chun-Li and I've watched so much 3S and discussed it so much with the best players in Sweden I know a lot about it. I know how you're supposed to play, I just can't do it personally since I've never actually practiced it) except MvC2 actually.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I've never really been into MvC2.
more along the lines of GG for me.

 

[swordgard]

Yuna, id love to argue with you but for some reason were always on the same side the issues on swf XD

 

[cutter]

Good thing I've played competitive MTG for several years then

 

[ShadowLink84]

I played mostly yu-gi-oh its a pity making a good deck costs upwards of 200 dollars.
never could win with my ****ty little deck.
The fighting games didn't appeal to me til later on and I had also gotten into shooters and other stuff afterwards.

I branch out alot

 

[The Halloween Captain]

The thing is that I'm only mean and condescending to people who I believe niceness will have no effect on. Way too many people ignore perfectly valid points just because.

Wow. You have no idea how to change a person's mind. Condescending pretty much never works. In fact, it destroys the opposing side's willingness to listen to anything you say, and makes them more steadfast than they started.

And by the way, saying that walls and walk-offs will overcentralize the game does not make it so. Each time a new game comes out, we need to test the walls and walk-offs to know if they are overcentralizing or not. It was done poorly this time, if one is to accept the competitive standards of most fighting scenes.

Technically, the only stages which do not involve any chance are Battlefield, Final Destination, Luigi's Mansion, and Shadow Moses Island. If I forgot one or two, feel free to mention it. However, even Smashville has a luck element concerning the moving platform's initial direction relative to the side the player starts on. This is only relevent on the most stringent understanding of how fighters should be played. Shadow Moses should be legal because it hasn't been proven to be overcentralizing, and the most it could do is make the Brawl competitive scene contain more character specific infinites and 0-death combos, which since they are spread over several characters, would not make it overcentralized.

Put simply, the arguement that there shouldn't be walled and walkoff stages because the metagame would revolve around walls and walk-offs and the tactics surrounding them does not make sense, because in essense it is not a single fighting element being banned, but fundamental qualities of the game. The elimination of walls and walk-offs eliminated a huge part of the competitive metagame, making multiple tactics completely unviable.

In other words, they would be overcentralizing for the same reason any fundamental is overcentralizing - it is a FUNDAMENTAL quality.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

The most frustrating part of it is watching, day in and day out, people who have never even been a part of a Competitive scene besides their now limited experience with Competitive Brawl claim to know how Competitive gaming works, saying "In Competitive gaming, we do this and that because of this and that" when they couldn't possibly know that since they've never actually played any other games Competitively.

Not only have I been a part of several scenes in the past (never becoming very good at most of their games, but that's neither here nor there), I happen to be acquainted with the very best of every single major Competitive fighting game scene in Sweden. We hang out sometimes at events and I've learned a lot about their games, even games I do not even play.

Needless to say, I've got more experience and knowledge of Competitive gaming come out of my left pinky than most people here on SWF, yet they come to me and claim I'm wrong and they're right when the extent of their insight into Competitive gaming is limited to maybe 5 tournaments and what some guy whispered in their ear.

Your competitive scene is in europe though. Needless to say the best over there can't compete with the best over here. Plus you don't even play brawl you might have more experience in other competitive scenes, which actually sounds like you just theory craft a lot in them, but it's not entirely the same as playing a game and going to that games tournaments. 5 years from now I won't show up to some SF forum telling them they are wrong to ban w/e because I've played smash for a long time.

 

[ShadowLink84]

you just stated inductive arguments are better which is not the case because inductive reasoning has several flaws to it. The biggest beig the human factor.

Everyone throws the word theorycrafting about as if it is negative or that it is purely theory that has never been tested.

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

I don't recall saying anything was better than anything else except the U.S. than europe. I don't know why that would be inductive but w/e.

Also the type of theory crafting yuna does is the one that isn't tested seeing as he doesn't play the game. I don't actually think theorycrafting is a bad thing just the way yuna does it is.

 

[Yuna]

Wow. You have no idea how to change a person's mind. Condescending pretty much never works. In fact, it destroys the opposing side's willingness to listen to anything you say, and makes them more steadfast than they started.

I tried that for months. It had no effect.

And by the way, saying that walls and walk-offs will overcentralize the game does not make it so. Each time a new game comes out, we need to test the walls and walk-offs to know if they are overcentralizing or not. It was done poorly this time, if one is to accept the competitive standards of most fighting scenes.

Yes. Who cares about previous scientific results? Just because a new game was released, things must become different!

It's not at all like walk-offs still work exactly the same! It's not at all like the same strategies still exist for walk-offs!

For each new game, we have to give everything 2 years+ before setting any rules because who cares if a lot of things are still the same as in the previous game? Items should obviously be turned on again since who knows if hasn't changed enough for us to turn them back on, we just haven't noticed them yet!

This is only relevent on the most stringent understanding of how fighters should be played.

The inane argument brought up by a lot of people here is "We maximize/optimize/whateverize X and Y!". Well, that is employing the most stringent of settings. And that does include banning everything that has even the slight bit of chance in them.

So they're lying.

Put simply, the arguement that there shouldn't be walled and walkoff stages because the metagame would revolve around walls and walk-offs and the tactics surrounding them does not make sense, because in essense it is not a single fighting element being banned, but fundamental qualities of the game. The elimination of walls and walk-offs eliminated a huge part of the competitive metagame, making multiple tactics completely unviable

We don't want the metagame over-centralized around these things that completely eliminates almost everything else from play. Edgeguarding, something that is inherent to Smash, would completely disappear with walk-offs and walls. The metagame would revolve, at least for counterpicks, around camping walls and walk-offs, comboing people across walk-offs, wall-infinites and wall-combos.

It would be over-centralized around those things. Nobody would care about anything else since walls and walk-offs are just so darn powerful.

Your competitive scene is in europe though. Needless to say the best over there can't compete with the best over here.

I'm sorry, and you know this how? Smash aside, have you any statistics of European fighting game players vs. Ameican ones?

Plus you don't even play brawl you might have more experience in other competitive scenes, which actually sounds like you just theory craft a lot in them, but it's not entirely the same as playing a game and going to that games tournaments. 5 years from now I won't show up to some SF forum telling them they are wrong to ban w/e because I've played smash for a long time.

I've been apart of Competitive gaming for years. I know more about how Competitive gaming works than most people will know unless they study it for 3 or so years.

I know enough about how Smash works that I can just read about it and the test it out myself. Even if I'm unable to actually do some things, it doesn't mean I cannot know about how, know how they work and argue the pros and cons of such and such.

Sports coaches are rarely if ever able to outdo their protogés, yet they are the ones people listen to, they are the ones people trust to instruct others. Because they have the knowledge. My or Europe's skill in this and that has no relevance. Under we're all living under a rock and not watching American videos or reading up on strats and techs on international forums, even if we're unable to do what the best in America can do, we still know about them.

We still know how Comptitive gaming works, how Competitive fighting games works, etc., etc., etc. The "You're in Europe!" and "You don't play Brawl seriously!" arguments don't fly.

I
Also the type of theory crafting yuna does is the one that isn't tested seeing as he doesn't play the game. I don't actually think theorycrafting is a bad thing just the way yuna does it is.

I play the game plenty. I just don't spend hundreds of dollars traveling for it.

Since when do I not test things out? What could you possibly have to support this ludicrous assumption/claim/lie?

 

[Commander_Beef]

WOW ARE YOU SERIOUS??? It only works on like five characters! Falco's is more broken than DDD's due to his dAir at the edge. WHAT ARE YOU HOMOS THINKING?

 

[adumbrodeus]

WOW ARE YOU SERIOUS??? It only works on like five characters! Falco's is more broken than DDD's due to his dAir at the edge. WHAT ARE YOU HOMOS THINKING?

2 including DDD himself. 3 if you include small-step chaingrab.


Yes, I'm gonna point this out EVERY TIME somebody makes this error, until people get that mario, luigi, and samus can break out.

 

[Trapt497]

could you quickly explain to me how they get out? do you mean they can get out instantly or what? is it just DI?

i thought the bros could get infinited but apparently i missed something

 

[ShadowLink84]

could You Quickly Explain To Me How They Get Out? Do You Mean They Can Get Out Instantly Or What? Is It Just Di?

I Thought The Bros Could Get Infinited But Apparently I Missed Something

Mash Those Buttons!

 

[adumbrodeus]

could you quickly explain to me how they get out? do you mean they can get out instantly or what? is it just DI?

i thought the bros could get infinited but apparently i missed something

Button mash very efficiently, Magus' method is one of the best.

It's not just mashing buttons, but doing it in the most efficient way you can to maximize the amount of inputs you get per second. I generally still use my method from Melee to break grabs of rotating the control stick while rapidly sliding the side of my thumb back and forth over B/A/Y/X while pressing L/R/Z, but that's mostly good for it being effective yet easy to set up quickly for any time you happen to get grabbed.

There wasn't really anything before that was multiple regrabs but also required them to grab hit me, since for CGs if I mashed out faster they just won't bother grab hitting while doing it, so there's likely a better method than that for the grab hit infinites since ease/speed to set up and hold the controller differently isn't really important.

Yes, people just noticed this recently.

 

[ShadowLink84]

In short its EXTREME BUTTON MASHING!

XD. I am sorry I can never get over it.

 

[Trapt497]

lol ok thanks guys. so which characters CANT get out by button mashing? DK, bowser, and another de3? and also, can the characters like lucario that get CGed by de3 downthrowing, running forward a bit, and grabing again get out of that by button mashing?

 

[adumbrodeus]

lol ok thanks guys. so which characters CANT get out by button mashing? DK, bowser, and another de3? and also, can the characters like lucario that get CGed by de3 downthrowing, running forward a bit, and grabing again get out of that by button mashing?

Nah, the reason why button mashing works is because the throw stales against
Luigi, Mario, and Samus, so the DDD user has to pummel twice to keep in the infinite going. He doesn't need to pummel to keep the chaingrab going so, doesn't work.

 

[Trapt497]

ahh i see.

was this topic brought up to argue against banning the CG? you know, since 3 characters who were thought to have no way out actually do?

point is, DK and bowser are still screwed lol

 

[TheReflexWonder]

They could stand at the edge for seven minutes, if they REALLY have to play DK/Bowser so badly.

 

[Barge]

Is this not what counterpicking is for?

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Is this not what counterpicking is for?

Well, I'd say that the problem is counterpicking this is too easy.

Sheik never had matchups that were this simple.

EDIT: whoops, double post.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I tried that for months. It had no effect.

That may be true, but what you are doing now has the abilityt and the tendency to backfire.

We don't want the metagame over-centralized around these things that completely eliminates almost everything else from play. Edgeguarding, something that is inherent to Smash, would completely disappear with walk-offs and walls. The metagame would revolve, at least for counterpicks, around camping walls and walk-offs, comboing people across walk-offs, wall-infinites and wall-combos.

It would be over-centralized around those things. Nobody would care about anything else since walls and walk-offs are just so darn powerful.

Well, this actually would itself need to be tested. Mind you, this is just theory fighter, but if we go by the absolute most stringent ruleset of using no stages where chance is a factor while allowing the stage slashing, each player would be allowed to remove a stage of his choice. One of them would probably remove Shadow Moses Island, because it is too powerful against his character. Thus, the stage would only be a factor when both players wanted it to be a factor.

Actually, because of the radical differences between Shadow Moses Island, Battlefield, Final Destination, and Luigi's Mansion, I am very curious how a tournament restricted to these stages would turn out.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Well, I'd say that the problem is counterpicking this is too easy.

Sheik never had matchups that were this simple.

Wut? So the solution is there, its easy to use, but you believe banning is a better alternative.
-_-;

Sheik vs Bowser/Link for the latter part

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Wut? So the solution is there, its easy to use, but you believe banning is a better alternative.
-_-;

Sheik vs Bowser/Link for the latter part

Gimpyfish was a respected Bowser main, right?

He differs in opinion.

Melee Sheik has more LOL matchups than DDD; just to let you know.

that's actually not even close to true - the matchups that ddd dominates he dominates harder than anything i've ever seen before