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

[Luigi player]

Its called secondaries for a reason. Back ups. Not saying "Main someone else", just a back up plan.

Well but he said he isn't allowed to play his main in the first round, which is really unfair.
Nobody get's beaten as badly as DK by Dedede.

If you choose this character you have absolutely no chance at winning... it really shouldn't be like that...

Everyone whines about MK, but this is a much bigger problem imo. At least against MK you have the possibility to win. I even win against MKs with Ness, but DK vs D3? That's ridiculous.

Just play DK once against a D3 that just stands there and infinites you.. you can't do ANYTHING. That's just stupid.

 

[cutter]

Well but he said he isn't allowed to play his main in the first round, which is really unfair.
Nobody get's beaten as badly as DK by Dedede.

If you choose this character you have absolutely no chance at winning... it really shouldn't be like that...

Everyone whines about MK, but this is a much bigger problem imo. At least against MK you have the possibility to win. I even win against MKs with Ness, but DK vs D3? That's ridiculous.

Just play DK once against a D3 that just stands there and infinites you.. you can't do ANYTHING. That's just stupid.

And yet, if you picked a character like Link in Melee, you ran the risk of being completely annihilated by Sheik.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

And yet, if you picked a character like Link in Melee, you ran the risk of being completely annihilated by Sheik.

So in this case, it's time to pick up a secondary that has a good match-up against Sheik.

HINT, HINT.

Edit: So I had to get the last word.

Smooth Criminal

 

[SothE700k]

Well but he said he isn't allowed to play his main in the first round, which is really unfair.
Nobody get's beaten as badly as DK by Dedede.

If you choose this character you have absolutely no chance at winning... it really shouldn't be like that...

Everyone whines about MK, but this is a much bigger problem imo. At least against MK you have the possibility to win. I even win against MKs with Ness, but DK vs D3? That's ridiculous.

Just play DK once against a D3 that just stands there and infinites you.. you can't do ANYTHING. That's just stupid.

Its called A BACK UP PLAN INCASE THIS HAPPENS. Why should be ban an infinite for someone because THEY aren't happy with it that their DK can't do it?

Ok, lets roleplay for a second. You brought a knife and a gun to a fight, and find out that your opponent has a gun. Are you going to just choose the knife, drop the gun and go against the guy WITH a gun?

So in this case, it's time to pick up a secondary that has a good match-up against Sheik.

HINT, HINT.

Edit: So I had to get the last word.

Smooth Criminal

Nevermind, he beat me to it lol

 

[Luigi player]

Its called A BACK UP PLAN INCASE THIS HAPPENS. Why should be ban an infinite for someone because THEY aren't happy with it that their DK can't do it?

Ok, lets roleplay for a second. You brought a knife and a gun to a fight, and find out that your opponent has a gun. Are you going to just choose the knife, drop the gun and go against the guy WITH a gun?

But the thing is that you have NO CHANCE to win the match.

Of course there should be counterpick characters and stages, but it shouldn't be that ****ing bad.

Chance at winning: 0 %.

Now tell me that's not wrong.

 

[mc4]

another one of these ban infinite throws topics? lol

"don't get grabbed"

and those 5 can still lose to DDD even if he doesn't grab them, like Bowser, but they can also still win it by avoiding the grab.

i'm sorry but "don't get grabbed" isn't that simple. That's like saying don't get hit. If you are playing against a good player it is going to happen. That really isn't a good argument. It's possible to avoid the majority of a players attempts at grabs, but for the chain grabbers, sometimes all it takes is one to change the momentum of the game (most of the time all it takes is one imo). If you are playing against someone who you are better than significantly than you can use that argument. The funny thing about that is that if you are that much better than the person you are playing alot of the time they probably won't even use chain grabs because they aren't that experienced and don't know much about chain grabs. " Don't get grabbed" sorry i just don't agree. But i will say that banning it if it isn't already banned calls into question the ic's chain grabs. It takes skill but that also can be a ridiculous infinite when mastered, and a quick and easy 0 2 death

 

[cutter]

But the thing is that you have NO CHANCE to win the match.

Of course there should be counterpick characters and stages, but it shouldn't be that ****ing bad.

Chance at winning: 0 %.

Now tell me that's not wrong.

In Melee:

Sheik vs. Bowser
Sheik vs. Link
Sheik vs. Pichu
Marth vs. Mewtwo
Marth vs. Ness
Marth vs. Kirby

Hopeless matchups FTW.

 

[SothE700k]

But the thing is that you have NO CHANCE to win the match.

Of course there should be counterpick characters and stages, but it shouldn't be that ****ing bad.

Chance at winning: 0 %.

Now tell me that's not wrong.

Okay. Not a problem. If you're so dedicated to that character and will absolutely go through with him no matter what, I won't stop your execution. Have fun never advancing in tournaments facing DDDs then.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

But it's Brawl, Cutter! It's not Melee! It's a different game! We're trying to make it balanced because we all know Melee was ridiculously unbalanced!

*sighs.* Those are the arguments that are gonna pop up next.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Luigi player]

Melee sucks anyway.

 

[Flayl]

I guess having someone say"I'm (not) picking Dedede" in a double blind would be too much? >_>

But yeah, as stupid as it is personally I don't think the infinite should be banned, at least not by the smash community as a whole. It should be up to the TO's. Let me clarify: Your region has very well known DK/Mario/etc. players and you're hosting a big tournament. Everybody knows who you're going to play. Some new guy you never heard of picks D3 in a double blind and infinites them on the first round, but then since he's not that good, he loses the other rounds. What the first round managed to do was force the well known infinitable main to switch characters (and waste time in a sense). The TO then decides that newcomers infiniting the local champs is against the spirit of the place's competition and bans the infinite. Or maybe the region just really enjoys having that player play his main...

On to the local Dedede champs and "world class" tournaments: It's your duty to know your opponents, you want to avoid bad matchups unless you're really confident in them. You really don't have a right to whine about Pikachu when playing Fox if you already knew your opponent was going to choose him, so the TO decides to extend that logic to VSing a Dedede main. Some characters don't even need an infinite to have a really really bad matchup.

 

[Hive]

But it's Brawl, Cutter! It's not Melee! It's a different game! We're trying to make it balanced because we all know Melee was ridiculously unbalanced!

*sighs.* Those are the arguments that are gonna pop up next.

Smooth Criminal

lol ppl aren't arguing bc all you have right now is precedent...
how would you argue that to begin with?
the other argument is that the character should be forced to counter a secondary... which has been argued to death...

ps it would be more solid if there were some reasons attatched to why it wasn't banned in melee, rather then a "well melee had something sorta similar" argument is all....
which only ends up as a debate between the differences between melee and brawl anyways...

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Melee sucks anyway.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

Okay. Opinion's fine and what-not. It seems to me that you're getting pissy because Cutter's point is valid.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Deleted member]

In Melee:

Sheik vs. Bowser
Sheik vs. Link
Sheik vs. Pichu
Marth vs. Mewtwo
Marth vs. Ness
Marth vs. Kirby

Hopeless matchups FTW.

Skill can overcome these whereas Brawl doesn't really facilitate the depth for the same to happen. However, even barring that, in Sheik's CG, you are still afforded the option of DI in an attempt to escape the CG or the sheik slap at the end of it. DDD's doesn't even do that. Anything that removes your ability to defend itself is extremely bannable. I would like to see this **** gone as well.

 

[Anther]

Why did Link get annihilated by sheik again?
I think that's one of those matchups that people just kinda made up results for. Sheik doesn't have all the advantages such as cgs and such on link that she has on the other characters o_O.

 

[Calixto]

Say two players are of near equal level, the 'match up' being 60-40 in Player A's favor.


Say they meet in a tournment. Player A chooses DK, Player B chooses DDD. DK, as predicted, loses. Set is 1-0, in favor of the player less in skill.

Say in the second match, as they are still of near equal skill, DDD manages to pull a victory against A's second (I don't know, Falco or something). Player B wins the set.


In this scenario, between two players of near equal skill, the player with less skill wins by abuse of a game mechanic that shuts out the better player's main. How, exactly, would that be fair?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Skill can overcome these whereas Brawl doesn't really facilitate the depth for the same to happen. However, even barring that, in Sheik's CG, you are still afforded the option of DI in an attempt to escape the CG or the sheik slap at the end of it. DDD's doesn't even do that. Anything that removes your ability to defend itself is extremely bannable. I would like to see this **** gone as well.

Oh. So I AM going to stand there and allow DDD to grab me, huh? ****, I'd thought I'd pick a character that could camp well and keep DDD at bay. Oh well.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Flayl]

That's Player A's fault for not having a good Falco.

 

[Anther]

Dunno, I have a friend that plays Luigi. He's pretty good at the game, and it sucks that he feels the need to pick up metaknight because certain players who have DDD as a secondary will pick him for the instant stock factors =P.

 

[Luigi player]

Well I know Melee doesn't suck but if you tell me that Shiek destroys so many characters I'd think that that's really broken.

I stopped following Melee's techniques etc. when Brawl was announced, and I also never was that pro at it. I mostly played against CPUs sadly.


Anyway, like some others've said. With those other characters in Melee you can still overcome it, but in Brawl it is like impossible to not get grabbed from Dedede as DK.



Also, like Anther said: This only makes more people picking up MK, because he's the best CP (or main) to have.

 

[Calixto]

Falco is his second, and as expected, is slightly less proficient with him than DK. This is enough to allow DDD win. Even if this were not the case, the DDD player as they are still of near (but not exactly) equal skill, could win and the better player would be eliminated.

 

[Flayl]

Falco is his second, and as expected, is slightly less proficient with him than DK. This is enough to allow DDD win. Even if this were not the case, the DDD player as they are still of near (but not exactly) equal skill, could win and the better player would be eliminated.

Falco has more than a 60:40 advanatge, iirc.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh. So I AM going to stand there and allow DDD to grab me, huh? ****, I'd thought I'd pick a character that could camp well and keep DDD at bay. Oh well.

Smooth Criminal

Having a character that default loses to another character at the character selection screen is dumb. Even if you have a character to beat DDD, you have to play that character 1st match, because if you just so happen to like a character that loses to him by default, you lose to him on blind picks (and probably the set). That's dumb.

Am I the only person on smashboards that wants matches based on skill rather than character selection? You're allowed to say no to this, I just sincerely want to know.

 

[Calixto]

That's not the point. The point is that in a double blind pick the better player will forced to play through the set with a first round loss handicap, which in close situations would cost him the win. How is that fair?

 

[cutter]

Say two players are of near equal level, the 'match up' being 60-40 in Player A's favor.


Say they meet in a tournment. Player A chooses DK, Player B chooses DDD. DK, as predicted, loses. Set is 1-0, in favor of the player less in skill.

Say in the second match, as they are still of near equal skill, DDD manages to pull a victory against A's second (I don't know, Falco or something). Player B wins the set.


In this scenario, between two players of near equal skill, the player with less skill wins by abuse of a game mechanic that shuts out the better player's main. How, exactly, would that be fair?

It's player A's fault for picking a character that gets victimized by D3 in the first place. He takes that risk of playing that character.

 

[Deleted member]

It's player A's fault for picking a character that gets victimized by D3 in the first place. He takes that risk of playing that character.

So you're saying that we should just accept those 5-6 characters as completely unviable for tournament play when we can just ban the gayness and be done with it?

 

[Flayl]

That's not the point. The point is that in a double blind pick the better player will forced to play through the set with a first round loss handicap, which in close situations would cost him the win. How is that fair?

How is it fair that character X has a really really bad matchup against Y? it's not.

 

[Luigi player]

It's player A's fault for picking a character that gets victimized by D3 in the first place. He takes that risk of playing that character.

So you're telling us that everyone should play MK because he has the least risks?

Just ban this totally unfair infinite and everything will be okay >_>

 

[Flayl]

So you're saying that we should just accept those 5-6 characters as completely unviable for tournament play when we can just ban the gayness and be done with it?

Let's assume everybody in a tournament secondaried D3: Those 5 would still be viable as a CP.

 

[cutter]

So you're saying that we should just accept those 5-6 characters as completely unviable for tournament play when we can just ban the gayness and be done with it?

Tell that to most of the low/bottom tier characters in Melee (in particular characters that got wiped out by Sheik).

Just ban this totally unfair infinite and everything will be okay >_>

No, it won't.

 

[HeroMystic]

This thread is getting funny now.

"It's your fault for playing a character that you like!"

Come on. Seriously, get better arguments.

 

[Flayl]

It is your fault for playing X against Y when you knew the other player was going to play Y, Y >>> X.

 

[Inui]

Dedede's infinites and small-step CGs should be banned. There's no reason to allow such nonsense in competitive play and DK and Bowser shouldn't be 100% unusable.

 

[Hive]

Oh. So I AM going to stand there and allow DDD to grab me, huh? ****, I'd thought I'd pick a character that could camp well and keep DDD at bay. Oh well.

Smooth Criminal

lol it has nothing to do with "letting D3" grab you @.@
this better not be another "just don't get grabbed argument" or heads are gonna roll...

if you think this than take seibriks challenge lol

ps its funny that most of the top DDD mains as well as most mains of the ppl who get effected by the infinite are the ones pushing the ban XP

edit: also seriously you shouldn't have to win a match on the select screen <.< this is unfair to the ppl who get infinited (they don't have a chance otherwise) and if even if they DID counterpick it would be unfair to the DDD mains who are now at a disadvantage (probably mK) and who will now ALSO probably have to counterpick....
why force ppl to play secondaries, when it could EASILY be fixed to allow ppls mains to be more playable???

 

[Flayl]

They wouldn't be 100% unusable even with the infinites still in play...

 

[Inui]

They wouldn't be 100% unusable even with the infinites still in play...

Yes, they would be.

Dedede vs DK or Bowser would be 100/0 in favour of Dedede with the infinite/small-step garbage. Picking any other character against DK and Bowser would be a waste of time when you can take a whole stock from a single grab with the best grabber in the game without thinking.

Don't say "don't get grabbed" because that's stupid. Go watch me vs Bum on YouTube where I get lots of grabs with MK, who is inferior to Dedede when it comes to grabbing. He's the best DK and he still got grabbed a decent amount.

 

[Flayl]

No, you just conveniently forget how the CP system works.

 

[Deleted member]

Tell that to most of the low/bottom tier characters in Melee (in particular characters that got wiped out by Sheik).

I main Zelda. I routinely play half of the top 10 melee players in the world. I do fine vs them. I'm not *****ing.

Sheik is good. DDD is dumb. I can't see the comparison. At least when I narrowly lose to M2K's Sheik with Zelda, I fought him. Skill was involved.

edit:

This thread is getting funny now.

"It's your fault for playing a character that you like!"

Come on. Seriously, get better arguments.

Brilliant.

 

[Inui]

No, you just conveniently forget how the CP system works.

I know what you're trying to get at, and it's silly.

You're saying to only use DK/Bowser/other screwed characters if your opponent is forced to stay off of Dedede or picks non-Dedede after a counterpick is decided.

That's lame and doesn't fix anything.

 

[Flayl]

Is Sheik still proven to have that FTilt lock on Fox where she can up smash him out of it?