Banning Dedede's infinite? FIRST POST UPDATED WITH VIDEO.

[Yuna]

Actually, it is irrelevant. Stubborn TO>popular opinion.

Tell that to the same TO when he's stuck with 10 attendees.

Agreed, kinda. A TO can host as many tourneys as he wants; it doesn't mean people will attend. However, often popular opinion will influence TO's. Power to the Players!

Isn't this 100% in agreement with what I just said?

 

[Lord Knight]

"lol they shuld learn a new character". I know I'm going to hear this, and it's ********. I'll use a personal example. I don't play Brawl much, but a good friend of mine has an insane DK, he beasts. When we play, our games are usually very close, going ~60/40 my favor when I don't infinite. If I decide I want to be a massive tool and infinite him, I can usually win with < 30%. Someone with five times less experience than someone else beating the better player on their main because of an easily exploitable game mechanic. That's ****ing stupid. Why should they have to learn a new character because my character has something that completely ruins the matchup?

It's not retarted at all. That's the nature of the game. When I was ****** everyone in Melee with Marth, people switched to Sheik on me, and I started to lose. What did I do? Sure I complained, but I didn't try to ban Sheikgay, I just learned a new character. Having problems with Meta Knight? Learn a new character. Adapting to your situation instead of complaining about it and trying to get a tactic banned would be much much better.

It only works on 5 characters, 3 of them need to be pummelled, so it is mashable, and if you're REALLY deadset on picking Mario/Luigi/Samus/Dedede/Bowser vs Dedede, you can always counterpick a stage that would make it difficult to do, like Norfair or Elektroplankton.

Just wanted to add my opinion.

 

[cutter]

To me, it seems like most of the people who want this banned are people who:

- main characters that get victimized by the infinites (lol what's new)
- main D3 and their morals/honor handcuff themselves into thinking the infinite is gay/stupid/******** (which BTW is NOT an excuse to ban something).

 

[BentoBox]

Yet you explicitly claimed we were talking about it 5 years ago. Making stuff up now, are we?

No, this is what I said:

Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.

In my paragraph I wasn't only discussing hacks, but you chose to believe so. Read my last paragraph in my previous post. You're the one making stuff up now.

Yes, let's skip the paragraphs outlining just how wrong we are because it's convenient not to learn just how wrong we are.

I do not believe there is anything to discuss. Sharing somebody else's ideals does not make you a tool, but you seem to take offense to that. I couldn't careless. So yeah, I chose to move on for the sake of moving on and not derailing.

100:0 =/= Do badly?

:] Yes. Fox does badly against Pikachu. DK doesn't just do badly against DDD, he gets annihilated.

And can you state that explicitly? For one thing, the fact that D3's dthrow works differently from others throws indicates otherwise. And what proof do you have it's an oversight? We can assume it is, but proof?

Also, developers oversight is irrelevant. It's only relevant if it's in the game and if banning it is warranted. Developers overlooked the various locks in the game and how we'd abuse certain stages, too. Should we ban/unban them?

Because no developer in his right mind would give a character an infinite involving the press of one button and no set-up whatsoever. :[ But I could be wrong, lol.

And considering a developer's oversight is relevant as it helps us pinpoint flaws in the game that we should deal with for the sake of competitive gaming.

Because on Bridge of Eldin, D3 makes 75% of the cast unplayable. He's already 4th best in the game without it. With it, he'd be 2nd or so best. It'd be play him, MK or lose.

With Bridge of Eldin banned, it's just don't play as the 4 characters which lose badly to him.

We ban things if they severely limit the metagame, not just because they limit the metagame at all. If so, we'd ban Sheik's F-tilt lock on certain characters. We'd ban Zelda's D-tilt lock on certain characters. We'd ban various wall locks instead of stages with permanent walls, etc., etc., etc.

Praytell, what should we limit D3's options against these characters to? 5 dthrows in a row? But he can get more than those in against certain characters on FD! As many as a normal running CG can net him? But he can't do that on Luigi! An arbitrary number (other than 5) just for the lulz?

His position in the tier list is irrelevant. The stage was banned before the first tier list even came out. And with it on, you still have about 10 characters to choose from. What if I decide that is enough for competitive play? Who are you to decide that 4 unplayable characters is low enough as a benchmark? There is no logic in your argument. Just preference. Zelda/Sheik's tilt locks aren't even infinites as you can SDI out of them. DDD's is stage independent, skill independent, setup independent(camp for a grab), and ruins 4 characters (one of them being high tier) for no good reason. That is incomparable to anything else in this game we've had to deal with so far.

As for what we should limit him to: no infinites. Clear enough. No need to over think it ;].

It's not retarted at all. That's the nature of the game. When I was ****** everyone in Melee with Marth, people switched to Sheik on me, and I started to lose. What did I do? Sure I complained, but I didn't try to ban Sheikgay, I just learned a new character. Having problems with Meta Knight? Learn a new character. Adapting to your situation instead of complaining about it and trying to get a tactic banned would be much much better.

Jesus. They went for a character that had a slight advantage (60:40 at best) over you. How exactly can you relate that to DDD's infinite on DK?

 

[Lord Knight]

He doesn't **** everyone in the game with it, he ***** 4 characters, things like this happen all the time. Step your **** up.

 

[cutter]

He doesn't **** everyone in the game with it, he ***** 4 characters, things like this happen all the time. Step your **** up.

Finally someone agrees with me

He also ***** Bowser though so that's 5 characters. Still, that's only a handful of characters and one can just easily pick someone else that doesn't get completely manhandled by DDD.

 

[brinboy789]

when did this turn from D3 infinite to if Brawl+ should be allowed competitively?

IMO, Brawl+ should not be allowed competitively. brawl+ is just the brawl version getting as close to melee as possible. if you want to play with melee physics, then play melee. although TO's can do w/e they want, IMO brawl+ shouldn't be allowed.

 

[BentoBox]

I main Peach, chaingrabs in this game do not affect me in any way.

100:0s do not happen all the time, what are you babbling about?

 

[Yuna]

No, this is what I said:

Really, we're not any more scrubs now for discussing this than we were 5 years ago.

In my paragraph I wasn't only discussing hacks, but you chose to believe so. Read my last paragraph in my previous post. You're the one making stuff up now.

I also said you could very well have been talking about banning chaingrabs in general (though not in that post you quoted).

I do not believe there is anything to discuss. Sharing somebody else's ideals does not make you a tool, but you seem to take offense to that. I couldn't careless. So yeah, I chose to move on for the sake of moving on and not derailing.

The argument was that you assumed something you shouldn't have assumed.

:] Yes. Fox does badly against Pikachu. DK doesn't just do badly against DDD, he gets annihilated.

And the point is, who cares? When does someone suck so much against someone else we need to start banning things? 100-0? 99:1? 90:10? And why? Why ban things just because they make a matchup virtually unwinnable? That one character is just that bad against that other one character.

Because no developer in his right mind would give a character an infinite involving the press of one button and no set-up whatsoever. :[ But I could be wrong, lol.

This was the man who implemented random tripping. Let's not give him too much credit.

And considering a developer's oversight is relevant as it helps us pinpoint flaws in the game that we should deal with for the sake of competitive gaming.

Not really. Nobody cares if it's a developer's oversight or not in Competitive gaming. The only thing that matters if it's "too good".

His position in the tier list is irrelevant. The stage was banned before the first tier list even came out.

But we all knew he was pretty good to begin with. Not banning such stages would make him pretty much #1 or #2.

And with it on, you still have about 10 characters to choose from. What if I decide that is enough for competitive play?

Because out of these 10, a many actually have bad matchups against D3 (IIRC), so he'd still have an uncontested advantage in them as well. Also, did we mention that D3 isn't the only one who can do this?

Falco can chaingrab people across the stage as well. As can anyone with a jab lock or other moving lock or some kind (D-tilt lock for Meta Knight).

Who are you to decide that 4 unplayable characters is low enough as a benchmark? There is no logic in your argument. Just preference. Zelda/Sheik's tilt locks aren't even infinites as you can SDI out of them.

Did I call them infinites? Sheik's F-tilt lock on Fox is near impossible to SDI out of it. Sheik's F-tilt lock is a hugely unfair advantage against Fox if you consider that it makes him pretty useless against her.

Also, Samus can D-smash chain Fox for quite a while. Unfair, right?

DDD's is stage independent, skill independent, setup independent(camp for a grab), and ruins 4 characters (one of them being high tier) for no good reason. That is incomparable to anything else in this game we've had to deal with so far.

Why? Because what would we limit it to? 5 grabs? Sheik's F-tilt lock yields more damage than that. Which limit would make it "fair"?

As for what we should limit him to: no infinites. Clear enough. No need to over think it ;].

And the point would be: Then what the **** would be the limit for Luigi, who can't even be running chaingrabbed but who can only be infinite (standing) chaingrabbed?!

 

[cutter]

I main Peach, chaingrabs in this game do not affect me in any way.

100:0s do not happen all the time, what are you babbling about?

Technically, you cannot say 100:0 when that means the superior character will always win every single time no matter what the outcome. I'm quite sure there have been matches where infinite victims have pulled out wins against D3.

While I agree the matchups are grossly in favor of D3, so are other matchups (like Pika/Fox).

 

[bobson]

To me, it seems like most of the people who want this banned are people who:

- main characters that get victimized by the infinites (lol what's new)
- main D3 and their morals/honor handcuff themselves into thinking the infinite is gay/stupid/******** (which BTW is NOT an excuse to ban something).

The reverse is true as well. Most of the people who don't want this banned don't main the affected characters, so they don't care.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

A poll is now up regarding this issue: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=208288

Please move all discussion to that thread.