Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

First bold text;
Yes, you do.

Second bold text;
3 characters become unplayable.

What 'warrents' a ban is obviously up for debate here (although it shouldn't), so don't act like it has a clear meaning here. Because you sure as hell haven't given one.

You keep saying 'ban worthy' or 'what warrents a ban'
Elaborate.

I would think making characters UNPLAYABLE would meet your standards but obviously not.

Give me some analogies, some examples, because I'm not understanding why we wouldn't ban a move that eliminates 3/6 characters from the roster even though banning the move would do nothing to affect D3.

as a matter of fact, i have, and ive done it several times in this thread. search back a bit and read of my posts.

and actually, "what warrants a ban" isn't really up for debate. 6 so-called unplayable characters are not enough for a ban, because they don't break the game AS A WHOLE.

and whatever the **** give you the idea that we ban things to "balance the game", hell, let's ban every one except Falcon by that reasoning!

 

[beamswordsman]

Look, this argument is moot, it only affects 6* characters, so why not ban it?

Because a tactic that harms only six characters isn't overwhelming enough for a ban. If his infinite made DDD god tier and ***** everyone, it would make more sense to ban it.

Why should we have to counterpick?

Because if you know your main character gets ***** by him, you should have a secondary ready to prevent that from happening. This is common sense.

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?

It won't make things balanced, just handicap characters with advantages. Bans are made to prevent overcentralization, not to make other characters better.

 

[Pi]

as a matter of fact, i have, and ive done it several times in this thread. search back a bit and read of my posts.

and actually, "what warrants a ban" isn't really up for debate. 6 so-called unplayable characters are not enough for a ban, because they don't break the game AS A WHOLE.

and whatever the **** give you the idea that we ban things to "balance the game", hell, let's ban every one except Falcon by that reasoning!

Walk off stages? Walled stages?


Let me think on how to word this...

Alright

We eliminate characters from play.
Why not ban that?

Things that eliminated characters from play were banned in melee.

D3's grab is easy to set up
Easy to pull off
Unpunishable

And no downside if it's banned.

Please, please just give me a reason NOT to ban it, OTHER than it doesn't affect the whole cast.
Why would you CHOOSE to eliminate 2 characters from play, when you have the ability not to?

Because a tactic that harms only six characters isn't overwhelming enough for a ban. If his infinite made DDD god tier and ***** everyone, it would make more sense to ban it.

So given the choice (extreme example) to veto a law that harms a small portion of the population
while the others remain unaffected
And no downside to not vetoing it
you would choose not to veto it
because it doesn't affect the majority?


Because if you know your main character gets ***** by him, you should have a secondary ready to prevent that from happening. This is common sense.

My main character wouldn't get ***** by him, aside from this one infinite. Plenty of characters get ***** by MK
but the whole character
not just 1 move,
One move is making the difference between an overwhelming advantage
and a balanced fight.

It won't make things balanced, just handicap characters with advantages. Bans are made to prevent overcentralization, not to make other characters better.

It will make things balanced
This is not a handicap
It's people coming in and putting a halt to ONE broken INFINITE
To allow 2/3/4/5/6 to become playable, again.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Walk off stages? Walled stages?


Let me think on how to word this...

Alright

We eliminate characters from play.
Why not ban that?

Things that eliminated characters from play were banned in melee.

D3's grab is easy to set up
Easy to pull off
Unpunishable

And no downside if it's banned.

Please, please just give me a reason NOT to ban it, OTHER than it doesn't affect the whole cast.
Why would you CHOOSE to eliminate 2 characters from play, when you have the ability not to?

O RLY?

"things that eliminated characters were banned in melee"

...holy ****, you are obviously an idiot or never played melee and is just pulling this out of your ***. >_>

and why? because the tactic DOESN'T warrant a ban in the first place! it doesn't OVER-CENTRALIZE! walk-offs and walled stages DO! they're universal, infinites are NOT! anyways, did you actually go back and read some of the anti-ban posts?
because we CHOOSE to "eliminate" 2 characters from play because it's better for the metagame in the end.
why? so it doesn't get ban-happy and people learn to deal with their own problems.

the fact that it's "easy" doesn't mean **** either. >_> a tactic is either banworthy, or not. if it's humanly possible, someone will master it, and if that so-called "difficult" tactic is ban-worthy, we ban it. however, the infinites are not even close to over-centralizing or breaking the game as a whole.


EDIT: in fact, i did your work for you, read THIS(from pg 187 btw)

and second of all, i just don't see why EVERY single pro-ban supporter seems to think i pulled the so-called criteria for banning out of my ***.
guys, have you guys been a part of competitive melee or any other competitive fighting game?
because,
Quote:
If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame.
This is the only ban criteria EVERY competitive community agrees upon.

this is how it's run. and it WORKS. in the end, the metagame might hurt a little from a bit less characters, but overall it is healthy because people aren't ban-happy and learn to deal with their own matchup problems instead of complaining for a ban. seriously, banning something that doesn't warrant one is just like telling the community "we'll give you guys the easy way out, instead of dealing with your own problems by thinking, we'll just ban it so your lives are easier". and you know what happens then? since we discouraged thinking and dealing with your own problems, OTHER groups (again, fox comes to mind) will come and complain: hey, you guys banned a tactic for a 9:1 matchups, why not a 85:15, realistic, there is still very minimal chance of winning. soon, all we'll see is BAN, BAN, BAN because people have forgotten to think themselves before asking for a ban.
^and all this HURTS the metagame. that's why the ban criteria HAS to be met before banning something. and trust me, if you HAVE been a part of some other competitive gaming community, you'll know, the ruleset that has the least restrictions while keeping the game as a whole playable is a ruletset that WORKS, and works well.

 

[beamswordsman]

So given the choice (extreme example) to veto a law that harms a small portion of the population
while the others remain unaffected
And no downside to not vetoing it
you would choose not to veto it
because it doesn't affect the majority?

That example doesn't connect to the situatation. A more accurate one would to have that same minority have special privilages from everyone else. Its bad and doesn't help.

My main character wouldn't get ***** by him, aside from this one infinite. Plenty of characters get ***** by MK
but the whole character
not just 1 move,
One move is making the difference between an overwhelming advantage
and a balanced fight. Lots of characters have to deal with overwhelming moves/tactics. Thus counterpicking AGAIN resovles the issue.

It will make things balanced No.
This is not a handicap Yes it is.
It's people coming in and putting a halt to ONE broken INFINITE It's people too lazy to couterpick.
To allow 2/3/4/5/6 to become playable, again. Making characters more viable is not a good reason for a ban.

 

[Pi]

I think you should start thinking for yourself there buddy.

"this is how it's run. and it WORKS."

Banning the infinite would work. It brings 2 characters back into play. With no downside.




Nobody is getting ban happy because the line is clear, infinite = ban.

Your argument is more suited for the banning of MK.

In fact
"If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame."

Sounds like;
"If it affects my character, ban it"

If a move overcentralizes the metagame, or breaks the metagame
it should be banned

This does, for those 2-6 characters.

Say you want to play one of the characters
But you also want to win
You can't do it.

Sounds pretty selfish huh?

But sounds a whole lot less selfish when you take into account that there is NO downside to banning it.

NOT banning it is more selfish than BANNING it

Nobody is getting ban happy, stop using that as an argument.

I'd love to find ways around this, really, I don't want to ban possibilities
But it's a ****in infinite.

That example doesn't connect to the situatation. A more accurate one would to have that same minority have special privilages from everyone else. Its bad and doesn't help.

It's not special privledges, it would be special privledges if we ban dedede preforming his CHAIN grab on 6 characters.

But this only AFFECTS 6 characters.



"Lots of characters have to deal with overwhelming moves/tactics. Thus counterpicking AGAIN resovles the issue."
There is no resolve to an infinite.

It will make things balanced. Why not?


It's not a handicap, it's moving dedede's handicap from -5 to 0.


It's people too lazy to counterpick? What if we enjoy playing our character;
How bout 'It's dedede's too lazy to put up with more characters'


'more viable'
No, 'playable'.

Making characters PLAYABLE is not a good reason for a ban?
Coupled with no downside?


IT'S AN INFINITE.

 

[Pi]

Unnecessary

 

[Fletch]

Look, is his tornado infinite? Does it guarantee a stock? Is it nonpunishable?

We are not talking about marths sword range in melee, we're not talking about foxes shine in melee, we're not talking about snakes nades in brawl, none of these KILL YOUR OPPONENT ONCE YOU PULL THEM OFF FOR SURE.

You pull off this INFINITE correctly. They die.

INFINITE, just remember this, we're not saying a move is broken, we're saying an INFINITE is broken. Which it is, do you disagree? Do you think it's fair?



PLEASE Just REMEMBER if it is banned, this INFINITE, what is the harm? DDD opponents now have 6 more characters to worry about? SERIOUSLY? AND YOU'RE CALLIN US LAZY?

I said hypothetically; clearly MK's tornado does not infinite some characters in the cast, although it is a huge detriment and makes some matchups pretty impossible to deal with.

And so what if pulling this infinite off means they die? They have 2 more stocks, and it's not like we've banned every infinite before. Hell, Fox could infinite half the cast in Melee, and ICs could do it to everyone. Was that banned? Don't think so. And I explained to you what the harm was earlier. It doesn't break the game, and thus no exceptions need to be made in order for certain characters to be more viable. It's a fighting game, some characters are more viable than others, and we shouldn't create arbitrary rules to make lower-tier characters better. They're low tier for a reason.

 

[XxBlackxX]

I think you should start thinking for yourself there buddy.

"this is how it's run. and it WORKS."

Banning the infinite would work. It brings 2 characters back into play. With no downside.




Nobody is getting ban happy because the line is clear, infinite = ban.

Your argument is more suited for the banning of MK.

In fact
"If it overcentralizes the metagame or breaks the metagame."

Sounds like;
"If it affects my character, ban it"

If a move overcentralizes the metagame, or breaks the metagame
it should be banned

This does, for those 2-6 characters.

Say you want to play one of the characters
But you also want to win
You can't do it.

Sounds pretty selfish huh?

But sounds a whole lot less selfish when you take into account that there is NO downside to banning it.

NOT banning it is more selfish than BANNING it

Nobody is getting ban happy, stop using that as an argument.

I'd love to find ways around this, really, I don't want to ban possibilities
But it's a ****in infinite.

you really need to go look up what "over-centralization" means. because you argument is just stupid. "it does over-centralize, but for those characters"...i mean...wtf? do you even know what the **** that means?
but what part of "AS A WHOLE" do you not understand?

in fighting games, there are gonna be "unviable" characters and ****ty matchups, deal with it.

there isn't a "clear line" as you seem to think.example: fox vs. pika. it's a 9:1 matchup. it makes fox unplayable, at least in that situation. ban pika's cg against fox?

how exactly does it sound selfish? if some "gay" technique was discovered by MK that makes it an auto-win vs. falco and only falco, i wouldn't be for the ban. it doens't fit the criteria. >_>

btw, i do think for myself, the stuff i copy n pasted was written by me originially.

also, "no downside" is stupid. the downside is that it removes a tactic that was in the game and should have been kept in the game beacuse it doesn't break the game AS A WHOLE. (no cares if characters are unplayable, **** like that happens.) the other downside is that it discourages people in the future from solving their own problems, and just asking for a ban.

Making characters PLAYABLE is not a good reason for a ban?
Coupled with no downside?

not good enough, because it doesn't break the game AS A WHOLE

It will make things balanced. Why not?

in that case, let's ban everyone cept CF.

It's people too lazy to counterpick? What if we enjoy playing our character;

lololol. seriously, stop your scrubbish argument. "enjoyment of the game" is not a reason for a ban either.

'more viable'
No, 'playable'.

so? many characters in brawl are currently unplayable if you want to use only that character and expect to win.

 

[Pi]

I said hypothetically; clearly MK's tornado does not infinite some characters in the cast, although it is a huge detriment and makes some matchups pretty impossible to deal with.

And so what if pulling this infinite off means they die? They have 2 more stocks, and it's not like we've banned every infinite before. Hell, Fox could infinite half the cast in Melee, and ICs could do it to everyone. Was that banned? Don't think so. And I explained to you what the harm was earlier. It doesn't break the game, and thus no exceptions need to be made in order for certain characters to be more viable. It's a fighting game, some characters are more viable than others, and we shouldn't create arbitrary rules to make lower-tier characters better. They're low tier for a reason.

They have 2 more stocks
and 8 minutes in which to get grabbed again. The odds are overwhelming to say the least.

Fox's infinite was taken care of
No walled stages

IC's was far more difficult to set up
And banned in some tournies


Stop sugar coating it, it's not 'MORE viable'
It's 'playable'

'They're low tier for a reason'
'a reason'
'one reason'


One simple little fix makes them playable.
'Don't do this on them'

That's all you gotta say


Any competitive D3's upset over the potential ban?

you really need to go look up what "over-centralization" means. because you argument is just stupid. "it does over-centralize, but for those characters"...i mean...wtf? do you even know what the **** that means?
but what part of "AS A WHOLE" do you not understand?

in fighting games, there are gonna be "unviable" characters and ****ty matchups, deal with it.

there isn't a "clear line" as you seem to think.example: fox vs. pika. it's a 9:1 matchup. it makes fox unplayable, at least in that situation. ban pika's cg against fox?

how exactly does it sound selfish? if some "gay" technique was discovered by MK that makes it an auto-win vs. falco and only falco, i wouldn't be for the ban. it doens't fit the criteria. >_>

btw, i do think for myself, the stuff i copy n pasted was written by me originially.

also, "no downside" is stupid. the downside is that it removes a tactic that was in the game and should have been kept in the game beacuse it doesn't break the game AS A WHOLE. (no cares if characters are unplayable, **** like that happens.) the other downside is that it discourages people in the future from solving their own problems, and just asking for a ban.

I completely understand what you are saying
It doesn't affect everyone.
I get it.


What I don't get

Is when we have the power to make these two characters playable
Without ANY DOWNSIDE to D3
Why wouldn't we do it?

Where is the line? 50%? If 49% of the characters were unplayable due to 1 move, not even a move you would do by accident, a move you would have to knowingly preform, would you ban it? Or no because it's not the majority?

"no cares if characters are unplayable, **** like that happens"
It doesn't HAVE to happen
We have the ABILITY to correct it

Smash is NOT like other fighting games
It is original
And shouldn't be governed by the exact same rules as 'other' fighting games.


The only fear here is that it will promote the banning of all kinds of moves

But it won't, I assure you! It wont!

Ledgestalling and stalling in general are in the game
But because they could be used against all the cast they were limited/banned
But everyone had the ability to counter pick
Counter pick a character and stall it up! Why not?

It just seems selfish to me it really does


Where is the line here, obviously not 6 characters
10 characters? 11? 15? 38?

We have the power to change something so simple, so minuscule, and people are against it because it's 'change'
it's modifying a..a..'previously accepted rule'

Change doesn't need to be feared
This is a circumstance not around when this rule was formed

This is a new situation and should be treated with it's own set of rules.

This move removes two characters from play
It's not accidental
It's not a glitch
You have to consciously preform it, and it would be so easy to ban it with no downside to the character

 

[Arturito_Burrito]

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.

I can view videos, read stuff on SWF and play the game in Europe and still know all this.

Well I didn't really care that you where talking about other games. We're only playing brawl here. And if sakurai where to watch a few videos and read a few threads would we take his opinion to value in tournament discussions?

No, because it's irrelevant and inconsequential.

No it isn't, you have a very different metagame, Probably a very different tournament rankings, and even a different tier list if you where to make one.

Being better at Smash =/= Knowing more about the game and Competitive gaming

Many players are better than me in practice, but worse than me in theory. This is this and that is that. The fact that I'm not one of the best Brawl players in the world has no bearing on my ability to debate thing such as this.


How does this have anything to do with the whether or not I play the game or test things out?

Seriously, 90% of your reply to me had absolutely nothing to do with what you were replying to.

You: You don't play this game. You don't test things out!
Me: What do you have to support that? I do play the game, I do test things out.
You: Since you started talking about banning/ not banning things in tournaments. To support this well there's this entire thread

What does that even have to do with anything?! That doesn't even make sense.

Reading stuff and going on youtube =/= knowing how tournaments work either. You not being good at the game or even playing it matters if you can't see this then your just plain stupid theres no argument against it. This is because all your doing is theory crafting out of what you read and saw instead of what you experienced.

I can't believe your even asking this question. We are talking about banning something in tournaments yes? If you don't go to tournaments you have no idea what is really going on. Not every match is recorded and not every match is listed. Even if you where to study the tournament scene deeply you would only hear of the top tournament placers and not of the people who are getting knocked out by someone just switching to DDD.

90% huh? Did you actually do the math or just make up some random number like the people you yell at for making up facts?

You: You don't play this game. You don't test things out! <--- didn't actually say this sentence I don't know why the other two are the real ones but w/e.
Me: What do you have to support that? I do play the game, I do test things out.
You: Since you started talking about banning/ not banning things in tournaments. To support this well there's this entire thread

How does this not make sense? I don't want to insult you but you just have to be ******** not to understand this.

We are talking about tournaments right? We are talking about the metagame in tournaments being affected by this aren't we? We are talking about banning this in tournaments, no?

You are saying zomg I watched a vidz on youtube and it's not as big as you people say. I haven't been to a tournament in 6 months or even play the game often but the vidz guiz the vidz!

Or the thread or w/e it is you do to get insight on this game instead of gaining self experience.

This is all untested theory crafting because we are talking about what happens in tournaments that you don't go to and there for can't know how bad the problem is.

 

[Fletch]

They have 2 more stocks
and 8 minutes in which to get grabbed again. The odds are overwhelming to say the least.

Fox's infinite was taken care of
No walled stages

IC's was far more difficult to set up
And banned in some tournies


Stop sugar coating it, it's not 'MORE viable'
It's 'playable'

'They're low tier for a reason'
'a reason'
'one reason'


One simple little fix makes them playable.
'Don't do this on them'

That's all you gotta say


Any competitive D3's upset over the potential ban?

Fox's infinite worked without walls, he could drill-shine lots of characters back and forth. And there's lots of "overwhelming" matches in Smash, have you seen Pichu versus Sheik in Melee? That is about as unwinnable as it gets, but you didn't see anyone banning that matchup or her chainthrow. And since you propose banning this, do you propose banning CGs like Pika's against Fox as well? They're essentially the same.

 

[XxBlackxX]

They have 2 more stocks
and 8 minutes in which to get grabbed again. The odds are overwhelming to say the least.

Fox's infinite was taken care of
No walled stages

IC's was far more difficult to set up
And banned in some tournies


Stop sugar coating it, it's not 'MORE viable'
It's 'playable'

'They're low tier for a reason'
'a reason'
'one reason'


One simple little fix makes them playable.
'Don't do this on them'

That's all you gotta say


Any competitive D3's upset over the potential ban?

this shows completely you lack any knowledege whatsoever on competitive gaming...
first, difficulty is not a factor
second, that's DEFINITELY NOT the only reason they're low tier. since when was DK low tier anyway o_o?
so what about competitive D3's. i have seen some opposed to banning, some for banning. but thing is, OPINIONS don't matter unless they have GOOD reasoning, which apparently you lack.

 

[beamswordsman]

It's not special privledges, it would be special privledges if we ban dedede preforming his CHAIN grab on 6 characters. But this only AFFECTS 6 characters.

You just contradicted yourself. Your intention is to ban DDD from preforming a tactic on certain characters, is it not?

There is no resolve to an infinite.
It will make things balanced. Why not?

A combo is an inescapable string of attacks. Should we ban combos too?

It's not a handicap, it's moving dedede's handicap from 0 to 5.

Fixed.

It's people too lazy to counterpick? What if we enjoy playing our character;
How bout 'It's dedede's too lazy to put up with more characters'

DDD main/secondaries have to put up with weaknesses like everyone else.

Making characters PLAYABLE is not a good reason for a ban? No one is forcing you to run into traffic knowing the danger.
Coupled with no downside? Doesn't matter.

 

[AlphaZealot]

NOT banning it is more selfish than BANNING it

It sounds like you want to remove a characters best move against another character. If that isn't an accurate portrayal, then what exactly is the goal?

 

[Pi]

You just contradicted yourself. Your intention is to ban DDD from preforming a tactic on certain characters, is it not?


A combo is an inescapable string of attacks. Should we ban combos too?


Fixed.

DDD main/secondaries have to put up with weaknesses like everyone else.

I think you misunderstand me, Dedede can preform his chaingrab on the majority of the cast
I'm saying that it would be special privledge to ban him from doing his CHAIN grab (not infinite) on only 6 characters
But I'm saying it's not a special privledge to ban the infinite from the 2/6 characters it affects

Combo's are not always surefire deaths if preformed correctly =\

This is not a weakness, this is a solid brick/steel wall that cannot be overcome. Excluding counterpicking.

this shows completely you lack any knowledege whatsoever on competitive gaming...
first, difficulty is not a factor
second, that's DEFINITELY NOT the only reason they're low tier. since when was DK low tier anyway o_o?
so what about competitive D3's. i have seen some opposed to banning, some for banning. but thing is, OPINIONS don't matter unless they have GOOD reasoning, which apparently you lack.

Okay, I will ignore difficulty as a factor
And I didn't originally call them low tier, someone else did, I was responding to them because he made it seem like this infinite only affects select low tier characters and they were already low tier so **** them.
I would think the character users who's character is under examination's opinions would matter
For they are the ones it affects.

Fox's infinite worked without walls, he could drill-shine lots of characters back and forth. And there's lots of "overwhelming" matches in Smash, have you seen Pichu versus Sheik in Melee? That is about as unwinnable as it gets, but you didn't see anyone banning that matchup or her chainthrow. And since you propose banning this, do you propose banning CGs like Pika's against Fox as well? They're essentially the same.

Was foxes drill shine back and forth used to eliminate characters from playability?

I used overwhelming lightly, I like challenges really I do, but this is not a challenge, this is a dam, it can't be overcome.

Shiek vs pichu 'about as unwinnable as it get'

No, INFINITE's are AS unwinnable as it gets.

I didn't see any pichu's putting fox out of competitive play.

It sounds like you want to remove a characters best move against another character. If that isn't an accurate portrayal, then what exactly is the goal?

'best move' is putting it lightly don't you think?

'best move' would be MK's tornado
'best move' would be snake's Utilt
'best move' would be D3's Bair

This is not their best move, this is the only move they need, this puts them out of play, THIS is broken.



I am for banning this because I can see it being used if not prevented.

If you would like to, just say you guys are waiting for it to become a problem before you remove it.

Stalling wasn't removed until it became a problem

If this is a problem, it should be removed


"If you use this character versus this character
you WILL lose"
No exaggeration here

 

[XxBlackxX]

stop spouting "there's no downside" because THERE IS!

read my whole post on last page.

actually, what's selfish is saying OMG it affects my character, it affects MY metagame, let's ban it!
when it actually hurt the overall metagame.

also, smash=/= fighting games? why should smash (just brawl actually, since melee followed the principle and ended up with a healthy metagame, yet you don't know anything about melee do you?)
be any scrubbier?

 

[Pi]

stop spouting "there's no downside" because THERE IS!

read my whole post on last page.

actually, what's selfish is saying OMG it affects my character, it affects MY metagame, let's ban it!
when it actually hurt the overall metagame.

also, smash=/= fighting games? why should smash (just brawl actually, since melee followed the principle and ended up with a healthy metagame, yet you don't know anything about melee do you?)
be any scrubbier?

Melee & brawl are different (from each other, and from other fighting games
Give me some examples of the fighting games you are talking about)

actually, what's selfish is saying OMG it affects my character, it affects MY metagame, let's ban it!

It seems to me like that's what's going on here, until it affects YOUR (as a whole) character
it goes un-prevented

Is the downside you speak of people getting ban-happy? (Please in the future just repeat yourself, I do try to read everything, but some times I forget )



Listen to what I'm trying to say
Because I think this problem affects many parts of life

We have old laws
good laws, that are put in position to prevent X from happening

But this isn't X
This is Y
Y is similar to X, but it's not X

Y need's to be thought of as a separate situation
and Y's laws need to be tailored to fit Y

 

[XxBlackxX]

hell, like ALL of them. SF for example. and why SHOULDN'T the ruleset of ssbb be like melee. melee had a healthy metagame.

downside is all that about hurting the metagame. its only 1 pg back...just go read it >_>

but y has happened before.
there were ****ty matchups in melee
there were infinites in melee
there were "unplayable" characters in melee.
they werent banned.

and whats that about selfish again? if it affected falco i would still be anti-ban. it's still doesn't fit any of the criteria i stated.
what's more selfish is only caring about your own situation and complaining about unwarranted bans.

 

[Pi]

hell, like ALL of them. SF for example. and why SHOULDN'T the ruleset of ssbb be like melee. melee had a healthy metagame.

downside is all that about hurting the metagame. its only 1 pg back...just go read it >_>

but y has happened before.
there were ****ty matchups in melee
there were infinites in melee
there were "unplayable" characters in melee.
they werent banned.

and whats that about selfish again? if it affected falco i would still be anti-ban. it's still doesn't fit any of the criteria i stated.
what's more selfish is only caring about your own situation and complaining about unwarranted bans.

Naa
Brawl is different from SF, and from melee (unfortunately)
Melee had a nice healthy metagame, and the matches were fun to watch

But as far as I know, no character had a move that could put another character out of play
for sure
100%
inescapable ;|

Na, you see, you say 'unplayable' in quotes for the reason that it's only uh what's it...stats...data...what's the word...****...theoretically...no...STATISTICALLY!! That's it
Statistically some characters were 'unplayable'

But this is not just statistics here, this is I mean, this is really just 'unplayable', ya feel me?
****ty match up is not unplayable ;|

Also, curious, what's your stance on the IC's wobbling in melee? I always though that should be banned.

Personally I feel the only reason it wasn't banned is because nobody was able to 'perfect' (I say in quotes because I mean setting it up as well) it.

 

[beamswordsman]

I think you misunderstand me, Dedede can preform his chaingrab on the majority of the cast
I'm saying that it would be special privledge to ban him from doing his CHAIN grab (not infinite) on only 6 characters
But I'm saying it's not a special privledge to ban the infinite from the 2/6 characters it affects

Yes it is. Banning him or any other character from using a tactic just to help other characters is a special privledge and is wrong for everyone.

Combo's are not always surefire deaths if preformed correctly =\

Combos have the POTENTIAL to to kill, just like infinites. Infinites wont be an auto-win button.

This is not a weakness, this is a solid brick/steel wall that cannot be overcome. Excluding counterpicking.

If something can be exploited on a character, it's a weakness. Thanks for admiting counter-picking is a solution.

 

[Pi]

Yes it is. Banning him or any other character from using a tactic just to help other characters is a special privledge and is wrong for everyone.



Combos have the POTENTIAL to to kill, just like infinites. Infinites wont be an auto-win button.



If something can be exploited on a character, it's a weakness. Thanks for admiting counter-picking is a solution.

Na, Let me try to get you an analogy....
Special privilege special privilege...

Ah! Here we go

10 people are put in the desert
6 of them are given ice cold spring water
4 of them are given no water

Would it be a special privilege to give the 4 people fresh spring water?


And no, I'm assuming that the infinite might as well be an auto kill button (I think everyone is assuming that here, which is why it's up for debate 'ignore difficulty' as they say)
So from now on just pretend the infinite means you lose a stock.

And yes, silly, counter picking is ALWAYS a course of action to be taken, but I'm saying it doesn't have to be here if we ban the move. It shouldn't have to be

ya feel me?

 

[Fletch]

Was foxes drill shine back and forth used to eliminate characters from playability?

Definitely some of them. Try playing Link against a really good Fox.

I used overwhelming lightly, I like challenges really I do, but this is not a challenge, this is a dam, it can't be overcome.

Shiek vs pichu 'about as unwinnable as it get'

No, INFINITE's are AS unwinnable as it gets.

I didn't see any pichu's putting fox out of competitive play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This matchup isn't really much different than what we're talking about with D3 versus these characters. What does Pichu versus Fox have to do with anything? I don't get it.

 

[Pi]

Definitely some of them. Try playing Link against a really good Fox.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV4SjTp_U1A

This matchup isn't really much different than what we're talking about with D3 versus these characters. What does Pichu versus Fox have to do with anything? I don't get it.

You are right, that match is very similar to what we are talking about


The thing I am afraid of here, is that the characters D3 can infinite will not become competitively played BECAUSE of the infinite. I don't want to see character's dropped due to something stupid like this ;|


Was link/pichu not competitively played because of the infinite?

And we were talking about pichu v fox because someone brought up pichu's chain on fox ;o


And in all honesty I didn't know about this CG on pichu
Or the one on fox by pichu

Even so, there are slight differences in the D3 infinite no? DI doesn't come into play in here at all


We have the power here, to make all of the cast playable, versus any other cast member
by banning infinites ;(

That seems like 1 hell of a metagame to me

Make CP's optional, not required

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Was link/pichu not competitively played because of the infinite?

It certainly helped, among the fact that they are terrible characters.

What's the difference?

 

[Pi]

It certainly helped, among the fact that they are terrible characters.

What's the difference?

I was just curious

I never heard/knew about these infinites on these characters

Just led me to assume that nobody cared about them because Link/Pichu were not widely used

 

[dark-war-cloud]

well you know the motto...its easier to ban then to find a way to beat it, right?

Coming from a MK mainer..........

 

[Pi]

Coming from a MK mainer..........

I think it'd be more relevant to point out that you can't 'beat' infinite's....

 

[dark-war-cloud]

I find it funner to break peoples points with irrelevant mistakes.

 

[Pi]

I find it funner to break peoples points with irrelevant mistakes.

It is, of course

But it's not very effective while trying to prove a point (on the internet at least )

 

[brinboy789]

Coming from a MK mainer..........

i second FALCON

>_>

 

[GofG]

brinboy, out of curiosity, where do you live?

 

[ExCeL 52]

Does anyone wanna explain to me why it SHOULD NOT be banned?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^That really doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

 

[Pi]

Does anyone wanna explain to me why it SHOULD NOT be banned?

From what I have gathered:

1) It doesn't 'warrant' a ban. Meaning that because so few characters are affected by it, you would be expected to counter pick a diff char, instead of banning the move
2) People are afraid that banning this move will open the doors for all other 'broken' moves to be banned.

^^That really doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

It does matter
And you could have just told him

 

[Dark Sonic]

It does matter

No, it really doesn't matter. Proban has made the claim that DDD's downthrow infinite is broken enough to warrant a ban. It is their job to prove their case. Anti-ban does not technically even have to provide a case at all, they just have to disprove pro-ban's case.

That is how debates work. The one who makes the claim is the one who has to prove it.

 

[Pi]

No, it really doesn't matter. Proban has made the claim that DDD's downthrow infinite is broken enough to warrant a ban. It is their job to prove their case. Anti-ban does not technically even have to provide a case at all, they just have to disprove pro-ban's case.

That is how debates work. The one who makes the claim is the one who has to prove it.

You have to support your argument

Why is it broken enough

It's obviously broken enough for those 2 or 6 characters

But does it affect the game enough on the WHOLE to warrant a ban

At least those are the arguments I was faced with.


Personally, I see no problem in banning it's use on the characters in question
It pretty much removes them from play, and it's such an easy thing to ban
The game on a whole would be affected equally ban or no ban

But I'd venture to say that banning the move would affect the game in a more positive way (allowing more characters eligible for competitive play)

 

[WastingPenguins]

No, it really doesn't matter. Proban has made the claim that DDD's downthrow infinite is broken enough to warrant a ban. It is their job to prove their case. Anti-ban does not technically even have to provide a case at all, they just have to disprove pro-ban's case.

That is how debates work. The one who makes the claim is the one who has to prove it.

The way I see this argument is this: Proban has already explained why, in their collective opinion, the infinite should be banned. The problem is that there isn't a tangible threshold for brokenness for us to refer to, because brokenness isn't a tangible or verifiable thing. You simply cannot PROVE that something is broken enough to warrant a ban. Something is "broken enough" because the community collectively agrees that it is. There is nothing to prove.

The only obstacle, as stated above, is the inevitable slippery slope argument, which is really a crock because you could quite easily throw out a number of ways that any specific technique, it's applications, and the ways that it can be exploited are unique. Yes, you can make comparisons to other techniques, but these comparisons are not perfect. If the community could agree on a ban, a slippery slope situation is defeated as easily as saying "No precedent has been set except for techniques exactly like this one, of which none exist. Other techniques are unique and occur under their own sets of special circumstances, and any ban considerations must be made independently.

The point: talking about a burden of proof is ridiculous because the question of brokenness cannot be proved or disproved, even in principle. It is sheer opinion.

If you insist that the proban group must PROVE banworthy brokenness, I could just as easily insist that the proof has already been made and that you are ignoring that proof. But again: there is nothing to "prove" on either side.

 

[beamswordsman]

Hi, I'm back for more.

You simply cannot PROVE that something is broken enough to warrant a ban. Something is "broken enough" because the community collectively agrees that it is. There is nothing to prove.

When it gets to the point of "Pick DDD or lose", it's banworthy.

Na, Let me try to get you an analogy....
Special privilege special privilege...

Ah! Here we go

10 people are put in the desert
6 of them are given ice cold spring water
4 of them are given no water

Better one. The same 10 people go to the desert, but 6 people get more water than the other 4. Does it affect just those six people?

Would it be a special privilege to give the 4 people fresh spring water?


And no, I'm assuming that the infinite might as well be an auto kill button (I think everyone is assuming that here, which is why it's up for debate 'ignore difficulty' as they say)
So from now on just pretend the infinite means you lose a stock.
You still have to do it correctly. Can everyone do it?

And yes, silly, counter picking is ALWAYS a course of action to be taken, but I'm saying it doesn't have to be here if we ban the move. It shouldn't have to be
Laziness...is counter-picking so hard?

ya feel me? Not really.

Personally, I see no problem in banning it's use on the characters in question
It pretty much removes them from play, and it's such an easy thing to ban
The game on a whole would be affected equally ban or no ban

Ease of a ban doesen't matter. It has to be very reasonable.

 

[WastingPenguins]

When it gets to the point of "Pick DDD or lose", it's banworthy.

The debate then regresses to: Is this the best criteria for making the ban decision? <-- Answer to this question is a totally subjective opinion. My opinion is that it is not. This is my opinion; you see, we are not debating facts, but rather the merits of our individual opinions. The unyielding Sirlin attitude is something that many people here subscribe to. My opinion is that it is usually a good but not perfect model, and that exceptions are fine as long as we agree that they are warranted.

Clearly the majority should make the ruling decision here, but a majority consensus doesn't mean we're doing it the "right" way or even the best way. It just means that we're doing it the way we've chosen.