Should King Dedede's infinite chaingrab be banned?

[cutter]

Anti ban side: What would you do if this got banned?

I would abuse the small step chaingrabs to hell and back, and the pro ban side would probably complain about those next and want them banned too. Bowser's also wouldn't be banned since technically it's not an infinite, but a FINITE chaingrab.

 

[YagamiLight]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

Commandment 11: Thou shalt not infinite thy neighbor's Donkey Kong with thy King Dedede.

Anti ban side: What would you do if this got banned?

Same thing the Ban side would do if it DIDN'T get banned.

1) Continue playing the game, with or without this minor addition.

or

2) Ragequit.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Anti ban side: What would you do if this got banned?

complain how pika's cg against fox should be banned.
complain how MK should be banned.
complain how all cg's should be banned.
complain how brawl should be banned.
and lastly, complain how life should be banned because it's not "fair".

EDIT: but in all seriousness, yea ill just continue, and try to convince local TO's to not ban this at their tournies.

 

[LinIsKorean]

I know these points have been iterated already, but I feel that if I don't say my views I'm not really contributing.

D3's infinite should not be banned, imo, because it is not universal. It doesn't apply to every character, only 6 out of the whole cast. When you choose to play one of those 6 characters (I play Bowser myself) you have to realize that when you play against a D3, you will most certainly lose if they have any idea what they're doing. It's your choice to use one of these characters, you could just as easily pick any other of the 37 characters and not get CGed to death. Being CG-able to death is a flaw you have to accept with your character if it's case specific. Either deal with it and do what you can, or pick a secondary. People arguing this on a moral basis are just... wrong. Some people have said it isn't fair to people who main those 6 characters, but it is, in fact, completely fair. I would know, I main Bowser. You can pick a different character just as easily as someone else, it's not their fault that you picked one of the 6 CGable characters.

Sorry for beating a dead horse here, I just wanted to voice my opinion.

 

[Xyro77]

i cant believe this thread is still going. the SBR and morons like yuna are never going to do the right thing.

 

[XxBlackxX]

i cant believe this thread is still going. the SBR and morons like yuna are never going to do the right thing.

yeah because whatever you think is the right thing right?

/sarcasm

 

[Pi]

Black you been here for a while


What are all the negative aspects of banning this move that have come up thus far?

 

[Yuna]

Black you been here for a while


What are all the negative aspects of banning this move that have come up thus far?

We've told you already.

Also, "There are no negative consequences" =/= "This ban is warranted"

 

[XxBlackxX]

Black you been here for a while


What are all the negative aspects of banning this move that have come up thus far?

*sigh*
so you're back...one of the more logical pro-ban debators, at least.

as for negative aspects, let me just first say that it doesn't matter if there's "downsides" to the ban or not. if the tactic in question doesn't fit the criteria for banning, then it doesn't need to be banned. downsides is subjective, i can say it's bad to take out a tactic that didn't fit the criteria because it leads to a ban-happy mindset and discourages the community from thinking and dealing with their own problems, but i know i've said this before and you disagree. so let's break away from the "downsides" and debate on why or why not this is actually banworthy.

okay, here's a question no pro-ban person has answered:

over-centralization is one of the PROVEN criteria for banning something in competitive gaming. you cannot refute it. this was used in the past and WORKED and worked well. so let me ask you this: prove to me that whatever new criteria you wish in use is a BETTER idea than over-centralization. because they cannot co-exist and you have the burden of proof, our criteria was used and proven to work, so why is your criteria that includes banning this better?

 

[LinIsKorean]

i cant believe this thread is still going. the SBR and morons like yuna are never going to do the right thing.

Why do you continue to post in this thread then? >_>

 

[RDK]

Black you been here for a while


What are all the negative aspects of banning this move that have come up thus far?

We don't ban things because there's no downside and in the process completely **** time-tested principles.

Once you ban something as arbitrary as this, everyone and their mother is going to raise hell every time something is discovered that ****s with their main's matchups. I'm sure you'd love the pissing and moaning match that would ensue, but most everybody here has probably had enough.

 

[gantrain05]

usually there are more than ONE criteria to warrant bans, over-centralizing is only one thing, it only fixes certain issues, why does that have to be the ONLY criteria?

 

[Yuna]

usually there are more than ONE criteria to warrant bans, over-centralizing is only one thing, it only fixes certain issues, why does that have to be the ONLY criteria?

No one said this. What we are saying is that the pro-ban criteria are invalid/insufficient and they do not fulfill any of the already existing criteria, like over-centralization, which is the most important one.

The three most important criteria are:
* Over-centralization
* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag)
* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

 

[gantrain05]

No one said this. What we are saying is that the pro-ban criteria are invalid/insufficient and they do not fulfill any of the already existing criteria, like over-centralization, which is the most important one.

The three most important criteria are:
* Over-centralization
* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag)
* Prevents competition (freeze glitches)

thank you for clearing that up yuna, i couldn't find anywhere what the existing criteria were, and from what i was seeing on this discussion was that over-centralization was the only one.

 

[Amarkov]

We don't ban things because there's no downside and in the process completely **** time-tested principles.

Once you ban something as arbitrary as this, everyone and their mother is going to raise hell every time something is discovered that ****s with their main's matchups. I'm sure you'd love the pissing and moaning match that would ensue, but most everybody here has probably had enough.

Nobody wants to ban the infinite because "waah, teh matchup r too hard". There are other ridiculously bad matchups (Sheik vs. Ganondorf comes to mind), and few people complain about them.

The problem is with the idea of an infinite combo that requires only a grab to start. Sheik may have a stupidly great advantage over Ganondorf, but if the Ganondorf player is more skillful he can still win. If you get caught in an infinite chaingrab, though, even vastly more skillful is not enough. You must take off at least one stock for every time you get grabbed, or you will lose.

It may be that infinites should not be banned. We should at least wait longer to see if someone can find a counter, like the escape from Marth's grab release combo. But it's not because banning infinite chaingrabs is arbitrary, or justifies banning parts of all unbalanced matchups.

 

[Yuna]

Nobody wants to ban the infinite because "waah, teh matchup r too hard". There are other ridiculously bad matchups (Sheik vs. Ganondorf comes to mind), and few people complain about them.

Pay attention at least half of the pro-banners want to ban the infinite because "Wah, teh match-up r too hard!".

The problem is with the idea of an infinite combo that requires only a grab to start. Sheik may have a stupidly great advantage over Ganondorf, but if the Ganondorf player is more skillful he can still win. If you get caught in an infinite chaingrab, though, even vastly more skillful is not enough. You must take off at least one stock for every time you get grabbed, or you will lose.

So you support banning every single grab infinite/grab release infinite in the game?

 

[XxBlackxX]

Nobody wants to ban the infinite because "waah, teh matchup r too hard". There are other ridiculously bad matchups (Sheik vs. Ganondorf comes to mind), and few people complain about them.

The problem is with the idea of an infinite combo that requires only a grab to start. Sheik may have a stupidly great advantage over Ganondorf, but if the Ganondorf player is more skillful he can still win. If you get caught in an infinite chaingrab, though, even vastly more skillful is not enough. You must take off at least one stock for every time you get grabbed, or you will lose.

It may be that infinites should not be banned. We should at least wait longer to see if someone can find a counter, like the escape from Marth's grab release combo. But it's not because banning infinite chaingrabs is arbitrary, or justifies banning parts of all unbalanced matchups.

it doesn't matter if there's gonna be a counter or not. DK and bowser CANNOT win against D3. DEAL WITH IT. it's still your choice to even play those characters.

and about requiring the grab to start thing....that's the same argument as the infinites being too easy to do, which is stupid. ease of use is NOT a good argument.

 

[Tornadith]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

God would probably also not want this thread to go on any further and would make SamuraiPanda close this because no new progress is being made.

BTW, characters don't have feelings. We control them.

 

[Xona]

I think so because it works against 2 of the slowest 3 characters

It's a little less ban-worthy because it works against him too, but it works against DK and Bowser. Although, the stage kind of plays a role in this, as the platforms on Battlefield or Norfair actually give a chance of avoiding it (Especially Norfair). Those same platforms could easily make it so that he can't infinite even if he grabs. The lava on Norfair works wonders against it too. Moving stages in general fight the infinites, (even though many are banned). Now, on final destination, there are no platforms, slopes, gaps, or pretty much anything for that matter. Note: I do hate final destination, this is why. The infinite can't realistically be avoided by slower characters on that stage, projectile spamming gets annoying, and also removes all approaches that don't leave slower characters open for the infinite.

I think that the Dedede Infinite should be banned and stages that are banned because of it should be looked at for unbanning (even bridge).

 

[sparkpro]

I just thought of something, this infinite is so unfair. God wouldn't want this, we should do onto other what we don't want onto ourselves.

DDD doesn't want to be infinited so DK shouldn't be infinited either, this death grab should be banned.

But DDD can infinite himself so in a way he does want to be infinited so the death grab should not be banned.

 

[M15t3R E]

No one said this. What we are saying is that the pro-ban criteria are invalid/insufficient and they do not fulfill any of the already existing criteria, like over-centralization, which is the most important one.

The three most important criteria are:
* Over-centralization
* Anti-Competitive (randomness, lag)
* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

DDD's infinite falls under the 2nd and 3rd criteria you listed.
Also, stalling is a criteria. You forgot that one.

 

[XxBlackxX]

It's a little less ban-worthy because it works against him too, but it works against DK and Bowser. Although, the stage kind of plays a role in this, as the platforms on Battlefield or Norfair actually give a chance of avoiding it (Especially Norfair). Those same platforms could easily make it so that he can't infinite even if he grabs. The lava on Norfair works wonders against it too. Moving stages in general fight the infinites, (even though many are banned). Now, on final destination, there are no platforms, slopes, gaps, or pretty much anything for that matter. Note: I do hate final destination, this is why. The infinite can't realistically be avoided by slower characters on that stage, projectile spamming gets annoying, and also removes all approaches that don't leave slower characters open for the infinite.

I think that the Dedede Infinite should be banned and stages that are banned because of it should be looked at for unbanning (even bridge).

this......is like the worst argument...or maybe not, now that i think about it.

guess what kids? it doesn't matter about stages and whatnot, at the highest levels on play, DK vs. D3 is UNWINNABLE. so what? DEAL WITH IT. banning it on only certain stages is stupid.
we either ban it totally because it over-centralizes or breaks the game as a whole, or we don't ban it at all. there's no "middle ground" such as limiting # of grabs, banning it on certain stages, etc.
in this case, we don't ban it at all because it doesn't fit the criteria.

DDD's infinite falls under the 2nd and 3rd criteria you listed.
Also, stalling is a criteria. You forgot that one.

in what way is the infinite induce RANDOMNESS?
in what way does the infinite freeze the game/removes the character in any way?
explain or stopping pulling **** out of your ***

 

[M15t3R E]

this......is like the worst argument...or maybe not, now that i think about it.

guess what kids? it doesn't matter about stages and whatnot, at the highest levels on play, DK vs. D3 is UNWINNABLE. so what? DEAL WITH IT. banning it on only certain stages is stupid.
we either ban it totally because it over-centralizes or breaks the game as a whole, or we don't ban it at all. there's no "middle ground" such as limiting # of grabs, banning it on certain stages, etc.
in this case, we don't ban it at all because it doesn't fit the criteria.

This is why we keep telling you over-centralization is not the only criteria for banning. You make it sound like it is.

in what way is the infinite induce RANDOMNESS?
in what way does the infinite freeze the game/removes the character in any way?
explain or stopping pulling **** out of your ***

It doesn't have to introduce randomness into the game or cause freezes/glitches to be bad for competition.
Something that makes it so unknown noobs can dominate someone like Bum, is BAD FOR COMPETITION!

 

[XxBlackxX]

It doesn't have to introduce randomness into the game or cause freezes/glitches to be bad for competition.

how exactly is it bad for competition?

EDIT: over-centralization is indeed NOT the ONLY critieria, however it is one of the only PROVEN criteria. now prove why your criteria is better than over-centralization, because clearly you want this banned and this doesn't over-centralize, therefore they can't coexist.

Something that makes it so unknown noobs can dominate someone like Bum, is BAD FOR COMPETITION!

he can CP, if he doesn't then he was to DEAL WITH IT if he loses.

 

[Brinzy]

Something that makes it so unknown noobs can dominate someone like Bum, is BAD FOR COMPETITION!

Bum would be a ****ing idiot to not CP against DDD in an environment where the infinite is allowed. That's more of a crime than being beaten by an "unknown noob."

 

[M15t3R E]

Bum would be a ****ing idiot to not CP against DDD in an environment where the infinite is allowed. That's more of a crime than being beaten by an "unknown noob."

But then that means he can't use DK in tournaments, which effectively REMOVES CHARACTERS FROM THE GAME. How is that not bad for competition?

* Prevents competition (freeze glitches, invisible characters, removes characters from the field, etc.)

Effectively, it's worse than "removing players from the field". You cannot even bring DK or Bowser to the field at all in the first place.

 

[XxBlackxX]

But then that means he can't use DK in tournaments, which effectively REMOVES CHARACTERS FROM THE GAME. How is that not bad for competition?

there will always be unviable characters and ****ty, unwinnable matchups in competitive gaming. DEAL WITH IT.
as long as the tactic doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, it doesn't need to be banned.

EDIT: the infinites DO NOT prevent competition of the game AS A WHOLE. no one cares if a particular matchup is unwinnable. deal with it.

EDIT 2: lol, it was obvious he meant literally removing PLAYERS, notice he said players, not characters, from the field with a glitch.

 

[Brinzy]

But then that means he can't use DK in tournaments, which effectively REMOVES CHARACTERS FROM THE GAME. How is that not bad for competition?

Effectively, it's worse than "removing players from the field". You cannot even bring DK or Bowser to the field at all in the first place.

That's completely false. You can still CP with DK against anything that isn't DDD. That's 38 more characters DK can be viably used again. If you sincerely believe that DDD existing is going to completely remove DK from tournies, you're mistaken. It doesn't ever happen that way.

And "removing characters from the game" (not even the same thing as removing them from the field, which is a glitch) isn't a good enough reason to ban something if it's only making a fingerful amount of characters nonviable. You keep saying DK and Bowser, but what about the other 37 playable characters in the game? It's two match-ups out of, what, over a thousand possible fights? There's no reason to ban it because it's not single-handedly removing characters from the game, and even if it did, it'd be removing two of them. Tough **** for them.

 

[M15t3R E]

there will always be unviable characters and ****ty, unwinnable matchups in competitive gaming. DEAL WITH IT.
as long as the tactic doesn't over-centralize or break the game as a whole, it doesn't need to be banned.

It still hinders competition greatly because it gives n00bs an auto-win, and at the least it prevents good players like Bum from placing well in tournaments when they deserve to do well.

EDIT: the infinites DO NOT prevent competition of the game AS A WHOLE. no one cares if a particular matchup is unwinnable. deal with it.

It shouldn't need to prevent competition of the game as a whole. Remember, over-centralization is not the only ban criteria.

EDIT 2: lol, it was obvious he meant literally removing PLAYERS, notice he said players, not characters, from the field with a glitch.

True, but this is the same as removing players from the field. Bum probably isn't even viable, himself, in tournaments if he can't use DK.

 

[XxBlackxX]

It still hinders competition greatly because it gives n00bs an auto-win.

how so? if a DK player is really as skilled as people think he is, he will CP. remember, the game is still "fair" to the players, but not to the characters. each player has the CHOICE to chose any character he likes/wants. if he wants to chose a character that can be infinite-ed on, that's his choice. he didn't have to do it, but he did, so he has to deal with it.

It shouldn't need to prevent competition of the game as a whole. Remember, over-centralization is not the only ban criteria.

no, but it's a proven criteria and you cannot ignore it. with infinites still in the game, the game as a whole is still competitively playable, and the ruleset only needs to changes if with the infinite brawl will no longer be competitively playable (as a whole).

True, but this is worse than removing players from the field. Bum probably isn't even viable, himself, in tournaments if he can't use DK.

well then he must either CP every D3 or find a new main. sucks for him. (or actually no it doesn't, since his region banned it anyway)

 

[M15t3R E]

That's completely false. You can still CP with DK against anything that isn't DDD. That's 38 more characters DK can be viably used again. If you sincerely believe that DDD existing is going to completely remove DK from tournies, you're mistaken. It doesn't ever happen that way.

False. If you can choose DK, the opponent will ALWAYS be able to choose DDD in the same match.

And "removing characters from the game" (not even the same thing as removing them from the field, which is a glitch) isn't a good enough reason to ban something if it's only making a fingerful amount of characters nonviable. You keep saying DK and Bowser, but what about the other 37 playable characters in the game? It's two match-ups out of, what, over a thousand possible fights? There's no reason to ban it because it's not single-handedly removing characters from the game, and even if it did, it'd be removing two of them. Tough **** for them.

Yuna said it was a good enough reason. Argue with him.
This does the same thing as the glitch, though. Bum can no longer place well in tournaments when he should be doing well, because of a **** programming oversight that gave DDD his infinite.

---------------------------
Black- you're proving my point when you explain that DK will need to CP against DDD.
The problem is, people who don't use DDD can easily use DDD's infinite against Bum and win. So, it's not that he'll have to CP every DDD. He'll have to stop using DK, period. Luckily, his region banned the infinite.

 

[Yuna]

DDD's infinite falls under the 2nd and 3rd criteria you listed.
Also, stalling is a criteria. You forgot that one.

Stalling prevents Competition.

It is not anti-Competitive. It does not prevent Competition. It does not break the game as a whole or make it unplayable Competitively, it merely defines two match-ups. It does not prevent Competition at all.

Preventing Competition means that if it is initiated, there is absolutely no way for the opponent to win, ever, i.e. freezing glitches, invincibility glitches, glitches which remove one or both competitors from the map.

 

[XxBlackxX]

Yuna said it was a good enough reason. Argue with him.
This does the same thing as the glitch, though. Bum can no longer place well in tournaments when he should be doing well, because of a **** programming oversight that gave DDD his infinite.

im sure when he said prevent competition, he meant as a whole, but w/e.
this is NOT the same as a glitch that takes players out of the field. sure Bum can't place, but it's tough luck for chosing DK, he must deal with it somehow.

EDIT: having to CP in no way eliminates competition. in fact, it's a PART of competition.

 

[M15t3R E]

Stalling prevents Competition.

It is not anti-Competitive. It does not prevent Competition. It does not break the game as a whole or make it unplayable Competitively, it merely defines two match-ups. It does not prevent Competition at all.

You're saying that nothing can be even a small bit bad for competition unless it ruins the game as a whole? I have to disagree with you on that.

Preventing Competition means that if it is initiated, there is absolutely no way for the opponent to win, ever, i.e. freezing glitches, invincibility glitches, glitches which remove one or both competitors from the map.

If DDD's infinite is initiated, there is absolutely no way for the opponent to win, ever.


Guys, it's fun using your logic against you.

 

[Yuna]

Yuna said it was a good enough reason.

No I didn't.

This does the same thing as the glitch, though. Bum can no longer place well in tournaments when he should be doing well, because of a **** programming oversight that gave DDD his infinite.

Programming oversight or not, it doesn't matter. Spot repeating the fact that is a programming oversight as if it adds any weight to your argument.

This does not prevent Competition. It merely defines a match-up and renders a character unviable. Preventing Competition means it makes Competitions entirely impossible, in other words, you cannot possibly hit your opponent (Stalling, Invincibility Glitches, Freeze Glitches, Removes one or port parties from the field).

 

[XxBlackxX]

You're saying that nothing can be even a small bit bad for competition unless it ruins the game as a whole? I have to disagree with you on that.

i think we'll all have to "agree to disagree", none of the points either side has brought up are new....

If DDD's infinite is initiated, there is absolutely no way for the opponent to win, ever.


Guys, it's fun using your logic against you.

but it's NOT the same as a glitch where it's PHYSICALLY impossible.

 

[M15t3R E]

This does not prevent Competition. It merely defines a match-up and renders a character unviable. Preventing Competition means it makes Competitions entirely impossible, in other words, you cannot possibly hit your opponent (Stalling, Invincibility Glitches, Freeze Glitches, Removes one or port parties from the field).

So, hindering competition doesn't matter. Only stopping competition as a whole matters, eh?

This is the problem. We'll never see eye to eye on this.

i think we'll all have to "agree to disagree", none of the points either side has brought up are new....

Agreed.

but it's NOT the same as a glitch where it's PHYSICALLY impossible.

What does it matter if it's a glitch or not when it produces the same exact results as a glitch?

 

[XxBlackxX]

So, hindering competition doesn't matter. Only stopping competition as a whole matters, eh?

This is the problem. We'll never see eye to eye on this.

yes that's about right. as long as the tactic doesn't make the game competitively unplayable, there no reason to ban anything.

 

[Yuna]

You're saying that nothing can be even a small bit bad for competition unless it ruins the game as a whole? I have to disagree with you on that.

Are you actually reading my posts or are you just making **** up as you go? When did I say that?!

If DDD's infinite is initiated, there is absolutely no way for the opponent to win, ever.

Yes there is. It just ends with the loss of one stock, not the entire match. And even if it ends with the loss the entire stock, it does not prevent competition, it merely prevents that one character from being viable against D3.

In order to prevent Competition, it has to be something which, upon activation, ends the match right there and then, period. This includes freeze glitches, removing one or both opponents from the field and excessive stalling.

Of course, if D3's infinite actually shaved off all stocks at once, you could say that it ends the match right then, right there, but you see, in cases where it's a combo which prevents Competition and not merely a technique or glitch which freeze the game, remove one or both opponents from the field or just makes it impossible for you to hit them (invincibility glitches, excessive stalling), it is only ban-worthy for preventing competition if it is universal or at least near universal, thus over-centralizing the game.

Combos do not fall under "Prevents competition" because they are just that, combos.

Guys, it's fun using your logic against you.

It's not our logic, it's our *******ized version of our logic and a healthy those of bad reading comprehension.

 

[M15t3R E]

Are you actually reading my posts or are you just making **** up as you go? When did I say that?!

You were speaking about preventing competition as a whole. That IS what you just said. You need to word points better if that's not what you meant.

Yes there is. It just ends with the loss of one stock, not the entire match. And even if it ends with the loss the entire stock, it does not prevent competition, it merely prevents that one character from being viable against D3.

In order to prevent Competition, it has to be something which, upon activation, ends the match right there and then, period. This includes freeze glitches, removing one or both opponents from the field and excessive stalling.

Of course, if D3's infinite actually shaved off all stocks at once, you could say that it ends the match right then, right there, but you see, in cases where it's a combo which prevents Competition and not merely a technique or glitch which freeze the game, remove one or both opponents from the field or just makes it impossible for you to hit them (invincibility glitches, excessive stalling), it is only ban-worthy for preventing competition if it is universal or at least near universal, thus over-centralizing the game.

Combos do not fall under "Prevents competition" because they are just that, combos.

DDD's infinite does effectively end the match if the DDD knows how to use it. It works the same way as a glitch, without it technically being one.
There are few true combos in Brawl. DDD's infinite is not what I would call a "combo".

It's not our logic, it's our *******ized version of our logic and a healthy those of bad reading comprehension.

Word your sentences better.