Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Thats nice that he disagrees about his main but if data collected from several years disagrees with his opinion and continues to reflect this disagreement, there should be one hell of an argument besides "I think this is untrue."
Yes, I understand. I was trying to emphasize Gimpy the expert Bowser's point - That the D3 matches are the most LOLiest. His comment doesn't make sense out of context, but neither does yours out of a larger context. Sorry that your meaning got lost in the transition.
Umm... the meaning is perfectly clear. Your reading comprehension just fails.
What I mean is I know EXACTLY what you meant. However, I was pointing out what Gimpy meant. Gimpy's point was used in context and I used your post to prove it, but it would destract from Gimpy's point to emphasize the exact meaning of your post, which was irrelivent to my point.
They both are 100-0 in both games. You can't get any worse than 100-0 unless you are getting at something else.
Yes, yes you can.
you better have a really good reasoning.
This makes my head hurt.
The experience of a person is the resut of inductive reasoning. This takes into account mindgames and several other factors that cannot be taken into account by the matchup ratios.
Stop pulling random matchup ratios out of your *** and claiming that Gimpyfish whispered it into your ear. 100-0 means there's absolutely no chance of the other guy winning whatsoever; worse even than if you unplugged his controller at the start of the match, because technically you could still shave your stocks off by SD'ing a bunch of times and the other guy could still win.
i love how you support your arguement with so many points, i dont even know what to say
tl;dr
everything has been said on both sides already. if he feels like voicing his opinion you should know why he supports the ban by looking at some of the pro ban arguments. its not like anything we say now will contribute after so many pages. enough sarcasm
Why smash aside? This is as dumb as brinboy saying can someone tell me why MK wins against snake but don't include gimping which is a huge factor. Plus we're talking about smash I don't actually think other fighters should be involved in here.
They don't fly because you say so? This isn't football either haven't you noticed that gamers don't make millions by just playing?
Since you started talking about banning/ not banning things in tournaments. To support this well there's this entire thread.
Stop saying that, it's impossible to not get grabbed by a good player.
And another thing, D3 game is almost based around his grab game. So most D3's will grab you during a match
One of the most employed arguments is that it renders the characters he can infinite useless against him. If you're (not you, "you" in a more "people"-sense) going to go by this logic, you can only argue that 2 characters will be rendered useless by it since the 3rd character is King DeDeDe himself.
She had plenty that were almost as simple. Also, the line is apparently "Slightly worse than Sheik" for what is bannable?
We can only ban one stage each. That means that if we allow broken stages to stay, there will be plenty of stages left we cannot stage ban.
You're arguing "diversity for the sake of interesting development" now. Have you no respect for Competitive gaming?
Because I was talking about how I had insight into every single major Competitive fighting scene there was. You jumped in with "You're in Europe". This indicates you are referring to my insight into fighting scenes other than Smash. If you only mean Smash, then why must I live in the U.S. to have any insight into the scene? I know how Smash the game works, I know how the scene works, I know what's going on.
No, because it's irrelevant and inconsequential.
Being better at Smash =/= Knowing more about the game and Competitive gaming
How does this have anything to do with the whether or not I play the game or test things out?
Well, I'll educate you. Literal infinites on 5 characters. Where skill is emphasized upon When DDD can do 1 action, instead of using a full arsenal of attacks, like every other character has to do to win a match.
100-0 means you cannot do anything, ever. That's when DDD grabs DK on last stock, or while Marth is spiking anyone over the ledge in battlefield at 60%, something of that nature.
You only need one pummel to keep the infinite going.
...
Maybe because this sets a bad precedent? Once we start banning a move that a character has, where do we draw the line? You said it yourself, this only affects 6 characters (and it's escapable by 3 of them, and one of the ones he truly infinites is D3 himself). So say (hypothetically) that people come to believe that MK's Tornado is too overpowered, and makes way too many characters not viable. Do we need to ban that then as well?
Seriously, do you guys just pour out your ******** opinions into threads without actually reading them a bit first? I just explained why the argument you're using is asinine literally on the last page.
well you know the motto...its easier to ban then to find a way to beat it, right?I voted no. It only effects five characters, so that is far from banworthy. And if you happen to main the characters at risk, just counter-pick. This thread makes me wonder what else people will try to ban out of bias or laziness.
Considering how long these debates have gone, someone should be finding an MK counter and shutting some of the pro-banners up(Or proving he is a psuedo-Akuma, depends on the future). The MK debate makes sense; this just starts the horrible slippery slope of banning.
It is because we are not trying to balance the game. There is a difference between creating a ruleset that lets the better player win and creating one that gives Captain Falcon as equal a chance of winning as Meta Knight (ie hacked Brawl-which is trying to "balance" the game). We are playing a fighting game, tiers, and an inherent IMBALANCE between characters is only natural.
I'd like to think there was away to escape an infinite. But they are called that for a reason.
Look, this argument is moot, it only affects 6* characters, so why not ban it? Why should we have to counterpick? If you ban his infinite on the 6 characters, is that going to make them OP? No. Are they going to have extreme advantages over him? No. It's going to make things more balanced, so what is the problem?I voted no. It only effects five characters, so that is far from banworthy. And if you happen to main the characters at risk, just counter-pick. This thread makes me wonder what else people will try to ban out of bias or laziness.
Look, is his tornado infinite? Does it guarantee a stock? Is it nonpunishable?
But to this extent?
Wobbling was never universally banned in Melee-actually, the majority of the biggest tournaments did NOT ban wobbling.
Majority of the big ones really?
First bold text;
What three?
