Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[XxBlackxX]

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

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

o rly?
tell me a competitive fighting game that used "your criteria".

or tell one competitive fighting game that used "my criteria" and DIDN'T have a healthy metagame. melee, SF, almost all other games used this criteria and they had healthy metagames. sure, melee had infinites and unviable characters, but they weren't banned. and the game as a WHOLE was still successful.

EDIT: what is your criteria anyways? any unwinnable matchup shouldn't exist? should be no unviable characters? well, what is it?

 

[Yuna]

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

Oh but you see, there are only so many tennis rackets that are popular among the pros (I'm assuming).

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

Hilariously enough, no one would be calling for the lucky tennis racket who happens to beat the other two to a bloody pulp to change.

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

Then let's change it to:
Super Smash Street Fighter Brawlee

39 fighters step into the ring. It's you, me, Ken, Azen, M2K and 35 other people. You happen to specialize in Praying Mantis Style Kung Fu. I'm a master of Random BS Pinching, Kicking and Scratching. I happen to be a master of knowing where to pinch people for the most damage.

You happen to have one weak spot on your lower back where if you're pinched, you'll randomly go into convulsions and lose the round. Would it be fair to ban me from pinching you there? I happen to be the only one who not only knows where the spot lies but also the only one able to accurately pinpoint it with 99% precision, everyone else fails whenever they try it.

No one else gets owned this much by my pinching. Is it fair to ban my pinching against you just because you happen to suck against it?

Or:
Competitive <insert any sport here>

At the start of a lifespan of each sport, you have an infinite number of styles to try on. However, as time progresses, certain styles are rendered obselete when other styles trumph it to such a magnitude that it becomes virtually useless since this other style will beat it to a pulp, every time.

What do you do? Ban the new style, even though all it does it beat one, two or at least a very small number of styles? No, you abandon the old style.

And those who wish to "sport to win" abandon the old styles and switch to other styles in order to compete! If you look at most Competitive sports of today, many of them have a very small, select number of widely used techniques because the other techniques just don't measure up.

Unless one technique randomly comes onto the scene and makes all other techniques useless, making it so that you have to use that one technique in order to win, nobody will demand certain techniques be banned.

Don't you people get it? This particular situation is unique.

No it's not. It exists in tons of Competitive fighting games. It existed in Melee. Yes. It did.

They may be useful thought experiments but they can't usually stand on their own as evidence for either side because the situations they convey are DIFFERENT.

Please enlighten us to how this is in any way different from Fox's 0-999% infinite on Peach and Link in Melee. Sure, that one was harder to do, but, hey, no one wanted to ban it.

Please enlighten us to how this is different from Wobbling. Please enlighten us as to how this is different from Itachi's 0-until you are dead no matter how big of a lifebar you have combo on every single character in the game in Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 (Hinata (not Awakened) has a 0-death combo on Kankurou if she catches both Kankurou and Karasu (grounded) in BBBABBY -> repeat (I think that's the string)). Please enlighten us as to how this is different from Sasori's flaw in NGNTEX that allows Naruto and Deidara to 0-death him if he ever falls to the ground.

Please enlighten us as to how this is different from Ganondorf's small-step chaingrab on certain characters in Melee (hey, we're talking about D3's small-step chaingrab on Bowser here!). These are just the games I have played myself and know enough about with enough certainty to state these things.

There are many other match-ups out there where certain characters just take it in the shorts from certain other characters due to a certain inherent flaw with one of the characters involved and an inherent strength of another.

That's not to mention match-ups where a character which doesn't suck particularly much randomly gets destroyed by this other character just because of several inherent flaws. What makes this so different? This is just another one of those match-ups. Why must we ban this and artifically change the match-up just because it's just one factor and not many? How is that fair?!

Oh, you're getting destroyed in that other match-up, but it's by several things, not just one thing. So we'll help this other character and ban stuff to make them better, but we won't help you!

 

[zacharia zako]

cmon people this is all pointless. you cant just take something out of a game just because that something has an advantage over something else! MANY games have some things that are superior to other things. its apart of the game.

You cant just take everything out that seems ''unfair" or "cheap" since its apart of the game and that makes some things have a certain power over others

just think of other games out there besdes brawl! im gonna use the new addition of tanks in callof duty 5 as a comparrison. Tanks can kill pretty much anybody but can be easily killed. those few who have a bazooka or some other sort of anti tank weapon can indeed overcome a tank.

You dont see call of duty players whine about how tanks are a one hit kill and how they shouldn't be in the game. They deal with it and find a way around i. Just like we should be doing with D3 cahingrab

there's a million more examples just like the one i mentioned. every game will have at least one thing that can over power another in a video game. That what makes a video game a video game.

 

[WastingPenguins]

o rly?
tell me a competitive fighting game that used "your criteria".

or tell one competitive fighting game that used "my criteria" and DIDN'T have a healthy metagame. melee, SF, almost all other games used this criteria and they had healthy metagames. sure, melee had infinites and unviable characters, but they weren't banned. and the game as a WHOLE was still successful.

EDIT: what is your criteria anyways? any unwinnable matchup shouldn't exist? should be no unviable characters? well, what is it?

Why the hell do we have to use precedent set by other competitive fighting games?

I would go through my whole tirade about competitive online PC games that constantly patch out in-game exploits in order to make their metagames as balanced and ultimately competitive as possible but we've been through it a million times in this thread already. All I can do is reiterate the fact that Orthodox Sirlinism is NOT the only philosophy in town. It works, if you like it, but so do tons of other philosophies, and it is CERTAINLY not vital or necessary to a healthy competitive community. The fact that ideas like "soft bans" even exist in thriving Japanese gaming circles should be evidence of that (for the record I think that soft bans are absolutely stupid, but I'll use it to prove a point.) You seem to believe the only extant criteria for banning something in any competitive communitiy, from gaming to real life sports and beyond, is whether or not it "breaks the game as a whole." If that's what you think, you are just dead wrong.

But like I said-- I've been through it all a dozen times in this thread, so why bother?

And what is my philosophy? Competitive pragmatism, i.e. to be someone who examines every situation (and its effects on the metagame/community) individually, rather than lumping them all together under one umbrella ideology and calling it a day.

Also for the record, as I have stated a thousand times: I believe in Sirlin for the most part and generally think it is an excellent philosophy, but I do think there are certain unique situations that beg for an exception to the rule. I have explained the characteristics of such a unique situation dozens of times already.

BTW Yuna I stopped reading your quote-tree novellas long ago. I don't even skim them so you might as well not bother.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

39 fighters step into the ring. It's you, me, Ken, Azen, M2K and 35 other people. You happen to specialize in Praying Mantis Style Kung Fu. I'm a master of Random BS Pinching, Kicking and Scratching. I happen to be a master of knowing where to pinch people for the most damage.

You happen to have one weak spot on your lower back where if you're pinched, you'll randomly go into convulsions and lose the round.

Now that's what I call competitive play! <3

 

[Yuna]

Who's to say that your criteria worked in the past?

Because it idd?

Plenty of other competitive circles would ban or modify aspects of a game with far less stringent criteria than "breaks the game as a whole."

Name one.

And guess what? It can "work" that way too!

Guess what, we don't care. We don't want "your" way.

My opinion is that your criteria are bunk, which is what I'm arguing in the first place.

Funny, my opinion is that your criteria are bunk.

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

No, but stop lying. Answer the questions I just raised.

 

[Gindler]

Why are we comparing sports equipment to the infinite chain grab?

We might as well say that one Pizza place has pizza that will always be better than the other places so we have to ban the good pizza at the good pizza place. or some equally ridiculous comparison.

Yeah, analogies not involving brawl physics are awesome...

 

[Yuna]

I would go through my whole tirade about competitive online PC games that constantly patch out in-game exploits in order to make their metagames as balanced and ultimately competitive as possible but we've been through it a million times in this thread already.

Name one Competitive online PC game community which has patched their own game to re-balance it. If the company (or in some cases, just a bunch of nerd) which made a game patches it, yay. If not, we take what we have.

All I can do is reiterate the fact that Orthodox Sirlinism is NOT the only philosophy in town.

Yes, and?

It works, if you like it, but so do tons of other philosophies.

We just don't like it. We don't want La La Land of Fairness. If a character sucks against another, then we just don't play as them. We don't want to ban a jillion things to make the game more balanced. That's not what Competitive gaming is about.

If you want balance and a game where every character is viable, go play Guilty Gear XX#Reload. Brawl is not GGXX#R. Get used to it.

The fact that ideas like "soft bans" even exist in thriving Japanese gaming circles should be evidence of that (for the record I think that soft bans are absolutely stupid, but I'll use it to prove a point.)

Japan is Japan. Japan is pretty much one of the only places in the world where soft bans are viable.

You seem to believe the only extant criteria for banning something in any competitive communitiy, from gaming to real life sports and beyond, is whether or not it "breaks the game as a whole." If that's what you think, you are just dead wrong.

We happen to think a lot of other things warrant bans. This is not one of them.

And what is my philosophy? Competitive pragmatism, i.e. to be someone who examines every situation (and its effects on the metagame/community) individually, rather than lumping them all together under one umbrella ideology and calling it a day.

We do examine each case individually. We just happen to think that this case does not warrant a ban.

BTW Yuna I stopped reading your quote-tree novellas long ago. I don't even skim them so you might as well not bother.

Oh, because I destroy your inane arguments? Way to run and hide!

 

[Yuna]

Wasted Penguins
I am addressing you directly with a post of its own without quotes just to make sure there's no possible way for you excuse yourself and not answer this:
"Plenty of other competitive circles would ban or modify aspects of a game with far less stringent criteria than "breaks the game as a whole."

You made this claim. Name one such circle.

 

[zacharia zako]

Why the hell do we have to use precedent set by other competitive fighting games?

I would go through my whole tirade about competitive online PC games that constantly patch out in-game exploits in order to make their metagames as balanced and ultimately competitive as possible but we've been through it a million times in this thread already. All I can do is reiterate the fact that Orthodox Sirlinism is NOT the only philosophy in town. It works, if you like it, but so do tons of other philosophies, and it is CERTAINLY not vital or necessary to a healthy competitive community. The fact that ideas like "soft bans" even exist in thriving Japanese gaming circles should be evidence of that (for the record I think that soft bans are absolutely stupid, but I'll use it to prove a point.) You seem to believe the only extant criteria for banning something in any competitive communitiy, from gaming to real life sports and beyond, is whether or not it "breaks the game as a whole." If that's what you think, you are just dead wrong.

But like I said-- I've been through it all a dozen times in this thread, so why bother?

And what is my philosophy? Competitive pragmatism, i.e. to be someone who examines every situation (and its effects on the metagame/community) individually, rather than lumping them all together under one umbrella ideology and calling it a day.

Also for the record, as I have stated a thousand times: I believe in Sirlin for the most part and generally think it is an excellent philosophy, but I do think there are certain unique situations that beg for an exception to the rule. I have explained the characteristics of such a unique situation dozens of times already.

BTW Yuna I stopped reading your quote-tree novellas long ago. I don't even skim them so you might as well not bother.

Wait a minute..... I thought of something DOES break the game as a whole it should be banned im gonna use a real life example for this one

a very long time ago football was palyed with flimsy leather helmets and little to no body padding. everyone tried to change it so the so called "leatherheads" could wear actual protection. do u know why they wanted that?

without proper protective gear, the game was broken since everyone was getting hurt and their bones were broken.

THAT actually happened and applies to this whole topic as well.

does D3's chaingrab affect the game as a whole (meaning every character)? No it doesnt

 

[Soft_Machine]

woooo Smash Bus Yeahhhhhh

 

[adumbrodeus]

the truth is, all competition in a true nature is meant to be fair, if a competition isn't fair and is one sided or unbalanced due to anything but a difference in skill or ability itis simply flawed.
in defining the word competition i stumbled across this, also referred to as a definition
•to compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against others•
please note, when breaking this definition down to under stand it, you will find that it is to "measure one's self against others" another way to phrase this would be "to test ones skill against another"
upon defining competition i found no definitions inclusive of the word "exploit" but i did find a definition for the word itself

The thing is we're dealing with fairness between PLAYERS not characters. Fundamentally speaking we can have a game that's reduced to Akuma dittos and it still would be competitively balanced.

The over-centralization issue is a concession to depth which makes the game better, but isn't about skill.

•In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers.•
i do not feel that when nintendo created brawl that they had any intentions of an unfair or unwinnable matchup. These infinites lead to only those situations and to utilize infinities is simply to exploit brawl, now you can choose to play the game and develop skill, and you can help others do the same by banning these things, or you can continue to exploit a great game, and leave a gap in competitive gaming and destroy any sort of skill that may exist, so in closing i would appreciate if you would take into consideration the information posted here, and from here on out, and do not, i repeat do not, simply state that "competition doesn't need to be fair" because as i see it, and as webster sees it in his dictionary "competition" is the measurement of skill against another.
thank you and good day

Firstly, we don't care about developer's intent, there are a mess of really interesting exploits that weren't intended that substantially improved many games. Those are called "ATs". As a whole, ignoring developer's intent is one of the greatest choices that competitive gaming EVER made. How much less depth would our contests have without little things like RARing? Melee even more so with wavedashing, crouch-canceling, jump-canceling, etc. The game would be so much less interesting without it.


As far as "skill" goes, a lack of balance between characters doesn't make the game unbalanced between PLAYERS, every contest of skill has factors were you can choose inferior options and the game no longer is perfectly balanced between the two players. But they both have those options, so it's still balanced between the players.

Track, I could choose to use inferior spikes. In fencing I could use a Saber that's balanced improperly for my fencing style. You have options like this in every competition, and video games your inferior pre-competition choice is choosing a weaker character.


Of course sometimes, certain tactics hurt depth enough that they qualify for a ban, and if DDD did this to every character, that certainly would be the case. But he doesn't, he does it to 2 characters, then has a powerful small-step chaingrab on another. But ultimately, we stick with game design unless there is an overpowering reason otherwise, because character diversity is not the primary goal.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Why the hell do we have to use precedent set by other competitive fighting games?

I would go through my whole tirade about competitive online PC games that constantly patch out in-game exploits in order to make their metagames as balanced and ultimately competitive as possible but we've been through it a million times in this thread already. All I can do is reiterate the fact that Orthodox Sirlinism is NOT the only philosophy in town. It works, if you like it, but so do tons of other philosophies, and it is CERTAINLY not vital or necessary to a healthy competitive community. The fact that ideas like "soft bans" even exist in thriving Japanese gaming circles should be evidence of that (for the record I think that soft bans are absolutely stupid, but I'll use it to prove a point.) You seem to believe the only extant criteria for banning something in any competitive communitiy, from gaming to real life sports and beyond, is whether or not it "breaks the game as a whole." If that's what you think, you are just dead wrong.

But like I said-- I've been through it all a dozen times in this thread, so why bother?

And what is my philosophy? Competitive pragmatism, i.e. to be someone who examines every situation (and its effects on the metagame/community) individually, rather than lumping them all together under one umbrella ideology and calling it a day.

Also for the record, as I have stated a thousand times: I believe in Sirlin for the most part and generally think it is an excellent philosophy, but I do think there are certain unique situations that beg for an exception to the rule. I have explained the characteristics of such a unique situation dozens of times already.

BTW Yuna I stopped reading your quote-tree novellas long ago. I don't even skim them so you might as well not bother.

STOP STRAWMANNING MY ARGUMENTS!

i asked you for ONE game that DIDN'T use "my" criteria for banning, and you said some random unrelated info about how pc games do patches. that is irrelevant. if sakurai wants to patch brawl and take out the infinites, fine. but a patch=/= a ban. a ban is the ABSOLUTE last resort.

also, i asked for your criteria, and you give me BS about "philosophy" and how you look at each thing seperately. okay, that's great, i dont care, BUT you haven't answered WHAT IS YOUR CRITERIA?

 

[Yuna]

also, i asked for your criteria, and you give me BS about "philosophy" and how you look at each thing seperately. okay, that's great, i dont care, BUT you haven't answered WHAT IS YOUR CRITERIA?

I think it was his way of saying "I have no criteria. I ban arbitrarily. There are no real criteria, no precedents, no set anythings. If I feel something is too 'unfair', I want it banned, no matter what!".

 

[ShadowLink84]

This topic was won as soon as pinching came into play.

 

[RDK]

Wasted Penguins, LOL.

 

[1048576]

Again, why should DK/DeDeDe be better for DK than Pika/Fox is for Fox?

I'd like an answer this time.

 

[Yuna]

Again, why should DK/DeDeDe be better for DK than Pika/Fox is for Fox?

I'd like an answer this time.

The standard answer is:
"It is my opinion that an arbitrary threshold has to be drawn at 'DK vs. D3'-bad. Because according to me, DK stands no chance of winning. In Pika vs. Fox, Fox still stands a chance (if Pika screws up really, really badly)!"

 

[highandmightyjoe]

Wasted Penguins
I am addressing you directly with a post of its own without quotes just to make sure there's no possible way for you excuse yourself and not answer this:
"Plenty of other competitive circles would ban or modify aspects of a game with far less stringent criteria than "breaks the game as a whole."

You made this claim. Name one such circle.

The bad ones.

I just wanted to ask something here. A lot of people seem to be supporting this mostly for DK's sake. People seem to think that because he is an otherwise good character it is somehow unfair for him to be held down by a single bad match-up. However, is the match even that good without the infinite? As a DK main I question whether or not it would even matter, since I have heard many respectable players from both the DK and DDD side claim that even without the infinite the match would still be 7-3 DDD advantage. If that's the case I don't even really see how this matters. With or without an infinite you are still in a scenario where anyone can counter DDD against you and get a pretty easy win, so you still need a second.

Then again I have heard other players say that they think it would be DK advantage 6-4 without the infinite. I guess no one has enough experience in this match to really make a good call on.

For the record, I am a DK main myself and I don't support banning the infinite. I have secondaries for the DDD matchup, I would hope that any good DK player would.

 

[Brinzy]

A lot of people seem to be supporting this mostly for DK's sake. People seem to think that because he is an otherwise good character it is somehow unfair for him to be held down by a single bad match-up.

Bingo!


I honestly believe that this is all it has come down to for many people. I don't see much of any talk for the others that are infinited, but of course someone has to make it known that they aren't good characters anyway so it doesn't matter. DK, on the other hand, is oh-so-important.

Counterpick the ****ing bird. People are acting like it's so unfair for DK to have to deal with this fight, yet I can see a few people on this board deliberately playing 30-70 or worse fights in serious matches. Why, because there's a slim chance of that person winning and they can get an ego stroke if they win? If people will counterpick a 45-55 match-up, they should counterpick for this.

I mean, there are people who believe that DK can take down DDD soundly if it weren't for the infinite. This still is not a good enough reason to ban it, in my opinion. If they're that worried about grabs wrecking them, they should start getting secondaries for DDD, and there are quite a few that fare effectively against him. (Ice Climbers, Zelda, Pikachu, Olimar, etc.) Most competitive smashers need more than one character to make it.

 

[The_Dyne]

^^ this.

10char

 

[gantrain05]

meh, imo any infinite shouldn't be allowed, i don't say this just for DK, i just believe its lame, i realize that, yes, DDD can easily be counterpicked, and if you have knowledge of the infinite that you probably shouldn't be playing a character that is susceptible to it, i see it in the same light as stalling, we don't allow sonic to sit underneath final d and just use his homing attack over and over, or let MK use his dimension cape to stall the match, if you think about it, an infinite grab is pretty much stall + damage, so even outside of K.O. percents DDD could theoretically win the match by infiniting the character on the final stock or w/e if he was afraid of losing. i know its a horrible description but im dead tired, maybe it will make sense to someone lol.

 

[cutter]

meh, imo any infinite shouldn't be allowed, i don't say this just for DK, i just believe its lame, i realize that, yes, DDD can easily be counterpicked, and if you have knowledge of the infinite that you probably shouldn't be playing a character that is susceptible to it, i see it in the same light as stalling, we don't allow sonic to sit underneath final d and just use his homing attack over and over, or let MK use his dimension cape to stall the match, if you think about it, an infinite grab is pretty much stall + damage, so even outside of K.O. percents DDD could theoretically win the match by infiniting the character on the final stock or w/e if he was afraid of losing. i know its a horrible description but im dead tired, maybe it will make sense to someone lol.

1. "it's lame" is a piss-poor reason to ban something.

2. You cannot infinite past 300%. That throws any stalling bull**** out the window.

 

[Wylde]

i see it in the same light as stalling, we don't allow sonic to sit underneath final d and just use his homing attack over and over, or let MK use his dimension cape to stall the match

we don't allow sonic to sit underneath final d and just use his homing attack over and over

Just double jump and move away from sonic. his homing wont go near you, and he'll fall down.

or let MK use his dimension cape to stall the match

Thats impossible to stop, and shouldnt even be in the realm of this argument. Thats for pure stalling, both of them. The Infinite actually provides an advantage to D3.

These Pro Banners are coming up with worse arguments as time goes by.

 

[gantrain05]

1. "it's lame" is a piss-poor reason to ban something.

2. You cannot infinite past 300%. That throws any stalling bull**** out the window.

no, you can't infinite past 300, but at that percent any other one of his throws are going to kill, so yes it can be used for stalling, and if used long enough is going to kill anyway, and i NEVER said the reason i believe it should be banned was because "it's lame" thats just my opinion, read posts more closely before deciding to respond like that.

oh so MK's dimension cape is impossible to stop once its started, and an infinite grab isn't? your counterargument sucks wylde, ZACK.

 

[1048576]

Whoops, double post.

 

[1048576]

The standard answer is:
"It is my opinion that an arbitrary threshold has to be drawn at 'DK vs. D3'-bad. Because according to me, DK stands no chance of winning. In Pika vs. Fox, Fox still stands a chance (if Pika screws up really, really badly)!"

That's a really stupid reason. Of course DK stands a chance. Jab is faster than grab, he always has options, etc...

If this is their counterargument, I see no hope.

Someone post the pro-ban side's real counterargument, or all of you need to admit you're wrong.






People, stop saying it's impossible to not be infinited. IC's are high/mid tier, tops, and they can do it to everybody.

It's impossible to not get IDC'd, because you start the match too far away.

Also, the inifinte isn't for stalling, blah blah blah.

 

[gantrain05]

wow.....i never said the infinite was FOR STALLING >< i said that its comparable in some ways,

1. its INFINITE just like all the gay stall techs
2.the opponent cannot do ANYTHING once the initial grab occurs

stop taking everything out of context.

oh btw, maybe us pro-ban people think that your stupid anti-ban arguments suck and that you should get a real reason,if you only see things through your own eyes you won't ever see the whole picture.

 

[Brinzy]

anti-ban arguments suck [...] get a real reason

Definitely getting somewhere!

 

[1048576]

Okay, your argument is that DK stands no chance. You're just flat out wrong.

You can avoid the initial grab, so your point is moot, unless you want to ban combos. rofl

It's not comparable in any relevant ways. That's what I just got finished arguing.

Logic has no bias.

 

[highandmightyjoe]

DK stands too little of a chance for it to matter. DDD has a huge grab range, set ups for grabs, and can force DK to approach. DK has no option but to approach DDD and when he does if he misspaces once he gets shield grabbed and loses a stock. If you space three moves wrong the entire game you lose. Even if you don't he can still get grabs anyway, just not as easily. If any DK, even a good one, can go an entire match without getting grabbed at least 3 times by DDD, then that is a terrible terrible DDD player.

It is a near unwinnable match. Still doesn't make it ban worthy though.

 

[1048576]

Fox/Pika is also near unwinnable. It's just slightly less near unwinnable. That's all I'm premising. Everything else that leads me to my anti-ban stance just follows from that premise.

 

[Sosuke]

2. You cannot infinite past 300%. That throws any stalling bull**** out the window.

Doesn't it take a while to reach that percent? And I don't think DDD has to throw them right away, so that could make each throw last longer. >_>

I'm unbiased btw. =P

 

[1048576]

I think most tournaments have a rule that you can force DeDeDe to let you go if you agree to suicide afterwards. At least, that would be the common sense solution I'd impose.

 

[bobson]

People, stop saying it's impossible to not be infinited. IC's are high/mid tier, tops, and they can do it to everybody.

It's impossible to not get IDC'd, because you start the match too far away.

It's possible to avoid the IDC. It won't get them anywhere if you aren't at a higher percent than them, so you can simply never get hit more than them and there you go. Plus, you can counterpick a moving stage like Rainbow Cruise to force them to stop eventually.

I'd say beating the IDC is actually more realistically possible in a tournament than avoiding the infinite with DK.

 

[Sosuke]

I think most tournaments have a rule that you can force DeDeDe to let you go if you agree to suicide afterwards. At least, that would be the common sense solution I'd impose.

Thats sad. =/
But if its true, okay.

I'd say beating the IDC is actually more realistically possible in a tournament than avoiding the infinite with DK.

Come on. Don't get grabbed as opposed to don't ever be at a disadvantage?
Not to mention MK is... MK.

 

[1048576]

Also, Rainbow Cruise will help you avoid being infinited just as much as it will help avoid the IDC.

 

[Yuna]

These Pro Banners are coming up with worse arguments as time goes by.

These are all old, actually.

It's possible to avoid the IDC. It won't get them anywhere if you aren't at a higher percent than them, so you can simply never get hit more than them and there you go.

That's not avoiding it at all. That's avoiding losing from MK starting the IDC the second the match starts.

"Never ever get behind in %" is almost impossible, though. Not to mention that the IDC equals instant loss of the entire match the second you get behind in %.

This infinite only equals the loss of one stock if you get grabbed. They're not comparable and shouldn't be, even if you are seemingly playing Devil's Advocate.

Plus, you can counterpick a moving stage like Rainbow Cruise to force them to stop eventually.

As opposed to infinites?

 

[1048576]

Lol, you repeated the two posts above you.

 

[Yuna]

Lol, you repeated the two posts above you.

I repeat to posts as I read them. It's also important for people who share the same views to repeat them. Strength in numbers.