DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[shinyspoon42]

Does it actually do that, though? I mean, if it's true, then I'm surprised at the number of DK, Mario, and Luigi players entering tournaments in this region, where the infinite isn't banned. They must be total morons to be using characters that don't even exist competitively.

Even then, I don't see why five characters, none of which are top or high tier, having an extremely bad matchup is something bad enough that it is significantly detrimental to competitive play.

All it is is an unwinnable matchup. Luckily for all those characters, there are a buttload of other characters to use if you see your opponent goes D3.

It isn't, pro ban people are arguing that w/out the infinite the character would be more viable, but there are tons of things we could do to make characters more viable, like saying you aren't allowed to edgehog tether recoveries. We aren't looking to make a character better, so it is a null arguement.

 

[blakinola]

Obviously this is going to differ between regions. Rulesets, stages allowed, differ from place to place. It's going to be up to the TO. Banning is stupid unless it breaks the entire game.

Simply put *limits* in place. 50%. Make D3 have to dash between grabs. Same thing goes for ZSS against Rob and Wario. Same thing goes for Pika against fox. If it doesn't progress to the end of the stage, set a frickin percentage. It's not hard. It's never a simple solution to say "just pick this character." How about you just pick a character you don't have as much experience with as your main. Don't eliminate anything.

Make the matches PLAYABLE. That's it. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Palpi]

Lol that would be absurd.

 

[shinyspoon42]

You live in the Midwest, correct? The most obvious reason is that there are really no good Dedede's here, other than lain who mains ICs. Without that threat, there's nothing stopping them from entering.

OK, so none of the characters are very good, do you think that means we should just basically stick our middle finger up to them and say "we don't give a **** about you"?

...okay?

No, but we shouldn't be changing the game because we want them to do well.

 

[tocador]

Yes, because Brawl is a special game and it should get special treatment unlike all other competitive games!

Spoiler

/sarcasm

You dont know what you are talking about.

Just because melee didnt wanted to ban sheik's "infinite" it dosent mean brawl cant. Stop thinking that brawl rules is limited to what people think was OK in melee =/.

@Ankoku: How does it helps with the metagame to have 5 character nullified from Competitive basically because people didnt want to ban a infinite regrab?

I know we dont ban to make metagame better, but TO's ban things they think are banable to help them win money(more entrances). So if they want to bant it, they will.

 

[Zankoku]

You live in the Midwest, correct? The most obvious reason is that there are really no good Dedede's here, other than lain who mains ICs. Without that threat, there's nothing stopping them from entering.

So only a good Dedede can win a 100-0 matchup?

OK, so none of the characters are very good, do you think that means we should just basically stick our middle finger up to them and say "we don't give a **** about you"?

Uh, yeah. I don't think we aim to give any high tiers any special treatment, either, so why should we be adding in rules specifically to help any characters in the first place?

@Ankoku: How does it helps with the metagame to have 5 character nullified from Competitive basically because people didnt want to ban a infinite regrab?

This is another instance of losing sight of banning to stop disastrous results in favor of banning for perceived improvement.

I know we dont ban to make metagame better, but TO's ban things they think are banable to help them win money(more entrances). So if they want to bant it, they will.

While I have nothing against the TO's who have banned the infinites since 2008 and continue to do so now, unless it is "the vast majority of all TOs in the country ban the infinite" I don't see that becoming any sort of validation for banning the infinite to become a standard.

 

[BSP]

Ok, if the infinite completely shuts down some people and removes them from the metagame, why are luigi and Dk where they are? If they got 'shut down' shouldn't they be closer to the bottom of the list?

 

[blakinola]

And when it comes down to it, The better player is going to win hands down, assuming some plane of reason.

The best MK will beat the best D3 if we're going on hard matchup numbers, but the more skilled player should, and will win. And I think that's what we've been seeing as of late in tournament results.

 

[Palpi]

This is another instance of losing sight of banning to stop disastrous results in favor of banning for perceived improvement.

I don't know why but I lol'd when i read this.

 

[cutter]

You dont know what you are talking about.

Just because melee didnt wanted to ban sheik's "infinite" it dosent mean brawl cant. Stop thinking that brawl rules is limited to what people think was OK in melee =/.

No, it is not just limited to Melee or Brawl, but competitive gaming in general, which is why I said "competitive games" instead of just Melee.

Want me to give you another example that doesn't relate to Melee or Brawl? In MTG, there's a card called Tarmogoyf that has single-handedly obsoleted a ridiculous amount of other creatures ever since it was printed just over 2 years ago... good creatures like Werebear, Wild Mongrel, Troll Ascetic, etc. Goyf is hated by a lot of the MTG community for being an overpowered card and shutting down so many good creatures. As powerful as he is though, he hasn't warped or overcentralized the game to the point where he needs to be banned.

DDD's infinite does not break the game or cause overcentralization. So why ban it? If you want to ban it to "increase diversity and viability", then you might as well ban Tarmogoyf as well.

 

[blakinola]

No, it is not just limited to Melee or Brawl, but competitive gaming in general, which is why I said "competitive games" instead of just Melee.

Want me to give you another example that doesn't relate to Melee or Brawl? In MTG, there's a card called Tarmogoyf that has single-handedly obsoleted a ridiculous amount of other creatures ever since it was printed just over 2 years ago... good creatures like Werebear, Wild Mongrel, Troll Ascetic, etc. Goyf is hated by a lot of the MTG community for being an overpowered card and shutting down so many good creatures. As powerful as he is though, he hasn't warped or overcentralized the game to the point where he needs to be banned.

DDD's infinite does not break the game or cause overcentralization. So why ban it? If you want to ban it to "increase diversity and viability", then you might as well ban Tarmogoyf as well.

You know there are cards to remove graveyards from the game

And to destroy cards

and to pacify cards

and to counterspell cards

That argument isn't relevant to the thread. Why do you keep bringing stupid things up?

get *****

Also, cards that are banned in MTG (like many cards in Mirrodin block) were banned for good reason. Let's keep the subject on smash bros at least.

 

[Zankoku]

The most relevant comparison from Magic would be thus:

When we get a

then we should probably look into banning it.

When we get a

we sort of just point and laugh at the black deck.

 

[blakinola]

The most relevant comparison from Magic would be thus:

When we get a

then we should probably look into banning it.

When we get a

we sort of just point and laugh at the black deck.

LOL

10 racisms

 

[FatJackieChan]

There are many reasons that this should not be banned. A ban is a very important thing. For instance, we banned Pit's stage, when many thought that it was fair and balanced. It could have been a semi decent counter stage. It greatly impacted the game in the fact that now, characters that would have had an advantage there no longer do. Say Ganondorf destroyed there because he could not go through the top platform. (In my experience at the stage this is true). Instead of losing a majority of his match ups he could take them there and win. That influences his match ups and eventually, his tier placement.

But the stage was banned and according to the tier Ganondorf is the worst character in the game. Each decision needs thought to have it done, otherwise something could go very very wrong. It doesn't matter how many people it affects and what it might do, what matter is "Is it fair?" Skyworld was banned because of many reasons that factored into a ban. Not just, will Ganondorf be ok if we ban this?

I have seen the Ice Climbers grab a person at 0%, at exactly 125%, the other Ice Climber charged his hammer and Side Smashed him to death (nice job Lain). A similar scenario happened twice more and the battle was over. Is this fair, yes. Have you ever tried the Ice Climber grab? It takes so much skill that after 9 hours of practice I could not do it. Does that make it fair? Not quite yet. Some characters get out of that combo. Marth can Up B at 45%. Toon Link floats out. It can be escaped with skill, multiple characters can get out (MK), therefore the move is fair.

I could end this right now just by saying, If that is fair then the much less important Dedede's chain grab is fair. But I won't.

It just so happens that the tournament with the IC combo was a tournament with the D3 standing infinite was banned. Which I find silly. D3's combo works on few people. The rule is that after 300% of damage you have to stop. So the question really isn't to ban the move, it should be that you are asking the back room to change that rule. It isn't stalling, breaking the game, and it most certainly not MK's cape glitch, those are the only rules that are banned. No character action has been banned.

Q: BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT MK'S CAPE GLITCH WAS BANNED?!?!?!? YOU LIED!!!!11!!!111!!ONE!!!!

A: No, not quite. This is a direct quote from the back room's rules.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while doing an infinite grab endlessly against a wall is. Any infinite chain grabs must end quickly after 300% has been reached so as to prevent excessive stalling.

Tell me how and conflict can go on while one of the characters is not there? MK's glitch technically isn't banned, it is stalling, and stalling is banned.

No other cheap thing, Pikachu's chain grab, IC's crazy friggin' grab, or hell, Sheik's grab in Melee is banned. So why should this?

Now, for those of you who say that it skewers the tier and such, like Luigi and DK would be higher if it weren't for that move. Well.... Every character would be higher if Snake couldn't snakedash. That skewers the match up and therefore the tier. I would reckon to say that if Snake didn't have that he would have the #2 spot. Falco can boost smash too. Maybe that should be banned to even out the game.

The point isn't to make the game even or simple, it is to make it fair. Fair so that all characters can expand to the fullest of their ability (without stalling). We need that with the lack of Advanced Techniques in the game, therefore we need D3's combo. A ban is a very important thing. Ever since someone mentioned banning MK we have been throwing the word around willy nilly. The game was made to play through these issues and to find ways to beat them, say picking up a different character. Before we just decide to ban something, think about it from all angles. And if you are too lazy to do that, let the smash back room do it, that is what they are there for. Keeping D3's combo legal is the fair way to play the game.

 

[cutter]

You know there are cards to remove graveyards from the game

And to destroy cards

and to pacify cards

and to counterspell cards

That argument isn't relevant to the thread. Why do you keep bringing stupid things up?

get *****

Also, cards that are banned in MTG (like many cards in Mirrodin block) were banned for good reason. Let's keep the subject on smash bros at least.

Banned cards can be answered as well. You can Wasteland Tolarian Academy and counter Yawgmoth's Will, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they are broken cards and should be banned regardless of the answers that can be provided for them.

I like how you strawman my argument and then lol over Ankoku's visual argument on the same thing I argued, except with different cards.

 

[MoW_G]

After sifting through 25 pages of arguments for/against I have come up with my opinion. DDD's infinite SHOULD be banned. This isn't melee and a character can not DI out like they used to.

Often times rules like this are made for competitive games not because they make the game more fair, but it stops the game from being easy and no fun to watch. A good competitive game isn't just good because of gameplay, it's also judged on how entertaining it is to watch. Halo's success can be attributed to this. I want people to come to locals that I host. I want people to enjoy themselves. Most of all, I want people to enjoy others gameplay, it helps everyone get better. If one player spams a particular move and it's impossible for the other player to escape it, that is not entertaining, it is not very skillful, and it's often times pathetic. Things like this are what makes brawl such a terrible competitive game.

As for the people who spoke about IC's infinite, I think it might warrant a ban, but I haven't done my homework on it, so I'll reserve my opinion.

 

[Zankoku]

After sifting through 25 pages of arguments for/against I have come up with my opinion. DDD's infinite SHOULD be banned. This isn't melee and a character can not DI out like they used to.

Often times rules like this are made for competitive games not because they make the game more fair, but it stops the game from being easier and less fun to watch. A good competitive game isn't just good because of gameplay, it's also judged on how entertaining it is to watch. Halo's success can be attributed to this. I want people to come to locals that I host. I want people to enjoy themselves. Most of all, I want people to enjoy others gameplay, it helps everyone get better. If one player spams a particular move and it's impossible for the other player to escape it, that is not entertaining, it is not very skillful, and it's often times pathetic. Things like this are what makes brawl such a terrible competitive game.

As for the people who spoke about IC's infinite, I think it might warrant a ban, but I haven't done my homework on it, so I'll reserve my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD_hVc7ojw

 

[BSP]

After sifting through 25 pages of arguments for/against I have come up with my opinion. DDD's infinite SHOULD be banned. This isn't melee and a character can not DI out like they used to.

Often times rules like this are made for competitive games not because they make the game more fair, but it stops the game from being easier and less fun to watch. A good competitive game isn't just good because of gameplay, it's also judged on how entertaining it is to watch. Halo's success can be attributed to this. I want people to come to locals that I host. I want people to enjoy themselves. Most of all, I want people to enjoy others gameplay, it helps everyone get better. If one player spams a particular move and it's impossible for the other player to escape it, that is not entertaining, it is not very skillful, and it's often times pathetic. Things like this are what makes brawl such a terrible competitive game.

As for the people who spoke about IC's infinite, I think it might warrant a ban, but I haven't done my homework on it, so I'll reserve my opinion.

Are you saying we should ban it because it looks uninteresting?

I don't think it deserves a ban. Doesn't break the game or over-centralize.

 

[MoW_G]

I edited my post because I read through it and realized it made no sense. Haha, and that youtube video is why brawl sucks. Chaingrabs are the worst thing to happen to smash, ever.

Are you saying we should ban it because it looks uninteresting?

I don't think it deserves a ban. Doesn't break the game or over-centralize.

That is exactly what I'm saying. There's a reason there are no chain grabs in balanced brawl or brawl+.

 

[tocador]

Why is this card so overpowered, i never understood it =/.

we point and laugh at the black deck

Thats racism man.

 

[FatJackieChan]

Woah, was I completely ignored? I put down like 8 paragraphs! that is what I get for posting at the bottom of the page? Bottom of 25 if you care, or I can edit and repost?

 

[Zankoku]

Why is this card so overpowered, i never understood it =/.

It was instant, constant card advantage for 1 mana in any color. Every single deck ran it, because it let them explode. While it was obvious for aggro decks (cheap card draw in aggro lol), combo and control decks started running expendable creatures just to take advantage of the thing, causing Skullclamp to literally be run in every deck. And it did make a significant difference, since it typically meant a win through overwhelming tempo advantage once it got played and used a few times.

 

[BSP]

Woah, was I completely ignored? I put down like 8 paragraphs! that is what I get for posting at the bottom of the page? Bottom of 25 if you care, or I can edit and repost?

My question got overlooked too if it helps

I was saying, if keeping D3's infinite will somehow completely remove luigi and DK from the metagame, how come it hasn't already happened? That would mean people are aware of the infinite, yet it still hasn't stopped the affected people from participating.

 

[tocador]

It was instant, constant card advantage for 1 mana in any color. Every single deck ran it, because it let them explode. While it was obvious for aggro decks (cheap card draw in aggro lol), combo and control decks started running expendable creatures just to take advantage of the thing, causing Skullclamp to literally be run in every deck. And it did make a significant difference, since it typically meant a win through overwhelming tempo advantage once it got played and used a few times.

I c.

Well, thanks for explaining, i mean, im a Magic noob, but i always liked the way the game was played, with like, mindgames going on every 3 seconds .

 

[FatJackieChan]

There are many reasons that this should not be banned. A ban is a very important thing. For instance, we banned Pit's stage, when many thought that it was fair and balanced. It could have been a semi decent counter stage. It greatly impacted the game in the fact that now, characters that would have had an advantage there no longer do. Say Ganondorf destroyed there because he could not go through the top platform. (In my experience at the stage this is true). Instead of losing a majority of his match ups he could take them there and win. That influences his match ups and eventually, his tier placement.

But the stage was banned and according to the tier Ganondorf is the worst character in the game. Each decision needs thought to have it done, otherwise something could go very very wrong. It doesn't matter how many people it affects and what it might do, what matter is "Is it fair?" Skyworld was banned because of many reasons that factored into a ban. Not just, will Ganondorf be ok if we ban this?

I have seen the Ice Climbers grab a person at 0%, at exactly 125%, the other Ice Climber charged his hammer and Side Smashed him to death (nice job Lain). A similar scenario happened twice more and the battle was over. Is this fair, yes. Have you ever tried the Ice Climber grab? It takes so much skill that after 9 hours of practice I could not do it. Does that make it fair? Not quite yet. Some characters get out of that combo. Marth can Up B at 45%. Toon Link floats out. It can be escaped with skill, multiple characters can get out (MK), therefore the move is fair.

I could end this right now just by saying, If that is fair then the much less important Dedede's chain grab is fair. But I won't.

It just so happens that the tournament with the IC combo was a tournament with the D3 standing infinite was banned. Which I find silly. D3's combo works on few people. The rule is that after 300% of damage you have to stop. So the question really isn't to ban the move, it should be that you are asking the back room to change that rule. It isn't stalling, breaking the game, and it most certainly not MK's cape glitch, those are the only rules that are banned. No character action has been banned.

Q: BUT I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT MK'S CAPE GLITCH WAS BANNED?!?!?!? YOU LIED!!!!11!!!111!!ONE!!!!

A: No, not quite. This is a direct quote from the back room's rules.
Stalling: The act of deliberately avoiding any and all conflict so that one may make the game unplayable. Running away from an opponent to reach a better position is not stalling, while doing an infinite grab endlessly against a wall is. Any infinite chain grabs must end quickly after 300% has been reached so as to prevent excessive stalling.

Tell me how and conflict can go on while one of the characters is not there? MK's glitch technically isn't banned, it is stalling, and stalling is banned.

No other cheap thing, Pikachu's chain grab, IC's crazy friggin' grab, or hell, Sheik's grab in Melee is banned. So why should this?

Now, for those of you who say that it skewers the tier and such, like Luigi and DK would be higher if it weren't for that move. Well.... Every character would be higher if Snake couldn't snakedash. That skewers the match up and therefore the tier. I would reckon to say that if Snake didn't have that he would have the #2 spot. Falco can boost smash too. Maybe that should be banned to even out the game.

The point isn't to make the game even or simple, it is to make it fair. Fair so that all characters can expand to the fullest of their ability (without stalling). We need that with the lack of Advanced Techniques in the game, therefore we need D3's combo. A ban is a very important thing. Ever since someone mentioned banning MK we have been throwing the word around willy nilly. The game was made to play through these issues and to find ways to beat them, say picking up a different character. Before we just decide to ban something, think about it from all angles. And if you are too lazy to do that, let the smash back room do it, that is what they are there for. Keeping D3's combo legal is the fair way to play the game.

It is a redo, if you will.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Obviously this is going to differ between regions. Rulesets, stages allowed, differ from place to place. It's going to be up to the TO. Banning is stupid unless it breaks the entire game.

Simply put *limits* in place. 50%. Make D3 have to dash between grabs. Same thing goes for ZSS against Rob and Wario. Same thing goes for Pika against fox. If it doesn't progress to the end of the stage, set a frickin percentage. It's not hard. It's never a simple solution to say "just pick this character." How about you just pick a character you don't have as much experience with as your main. Don't eliminate anything.

Make the matches PLAYABLE. That's it. Why is this so hard to understand?

IDK. It's ridiculous.

 

[blakinola]

I like how you strawman my argument and then lol over Ankoku's visual argument on the same thing I argued, except with different cards.

I lol'ed cause of the blatant racism joke (black and white cards)

In magic, banned cards are usually rightfully so. But at the very least, Wizards of the Coast has a proper enough mindset to alter their rules to the changing metagame.

Including what cards from what sets are legal, old, unused mechanics (phasing, holy god). And they RESTRICT cards. Like if you're gonna use Artifact Land, you can only have one of each. And I'm sure you know how stupid broken artifact lands can be!

Yes, there is a counter to every strat, but no deck (character) covers all bases. Sorry if I came off like a jerk, but MTG has no bearing on this discussion, imo. But if we're gonna compare, I feel MTG has at least a better idea of balancing around the evolving metagame. Keep what works, ban/restrict things that are op.

But the event organizer (TO) can do whatever he/she wants, and it will come down to that. And I feel that more people will feed into the notion that they won't be destroyed automatically by playing someone. Yes there are bad matchups between characters (Ganon comes to mind) but that's because he has no good approach options. We're not going to tell characters to sit still and take 50 damage to the face to balance things out.

But when a tactic completely shuts down a character and they have no control, no way to get out of it when it starts...that's a problem. 1 character, or all 35, it's wrong, and I don't agree with it. I'll never be as good with any character as I've been with DK and I don't run into too many penguins. But know that when I fight you and take a stock off you for some odd reason.. I'm running out the clock.

 

[RDK]

Yes, but Ganon sucks. Mario does not suck at the same level Ganon does. Luigi definitely doesn't, and neither does DK (Samus does LOL).

100-0 is not the same as a bad matchup. That's an IMPOSSIBLE matchup.

Um, what planet do you live on? There's no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That would entail that you automatically lose the match before it even began.

 

[swordgard]

Um, what planet do you live on? There's no such thing as a 100-0 matchup. That would entail that you automatically lose the match before it even began.

You havent played my new main obviously.



SANDBAG!!!



Yes, i 100-0 people with him, they cant bear his mindgames.

 

[Zankoku]

In magic, banned cards are usually rightfully so. But at the very least, Wizards of the Coast has a proper enough mindset to alter their rules to the changing metagame.

M10 rules are ****. They were developed to make it easier for new players to enter into the game without having to understand the intricacies, and it accomplishes this by removing said intricacies.

Including what cards from what sets are legal, old, unused mechanics (phasing, holy god). And they RESTRICT cards. Like if you're gonna use Artifact Land, you can only have one of each. And I'm sure you know how stupid broken artifact lands can be!

Phasing is nowhere near as silly as Banding, but legality is very simple - Standard (Type 2) is the newest two blocks and newest Core Set, Extended is about three Standards' worth, Legacy is for the most part a freeform format with the Power 9 and many other overpowered cards banned, and Vintage is an everything-goes format with nothing (that isn't dumb like the Ante cards) banned. Artifact Lands, to my knowledge, are not restricted, and never were. They were BANNED from Standard in order to completely make sure that Ravager Affinity was dead and gone, but completely untouched in the other three formats.

Yes, there is a counter to every strat, but no deck (character) covers all bases. Sorry if I came off like a jerk, but MTG has no bearing on this discussion, imo. But if we're gonna compare, I feel MTG has at least a better idea of balancing around the evolving metagame. Keep what works, ban/restrict things that are op.

There hasn't been banned stuff in Standard/Extended since Mirrodin, and before that, nothing since the other broken artifact Urza block. They did not ban things that just happened to be overpowered, but rather only cards that completely warped the metagame in a "use this or fill half your deck with cards just to deal with it" sort of situation.

Likewise, Dedede's standing infinite does not come close to covering every matchup.

But when a tactic completely shuts down a character and they have no control, no way to get out of it when it starts...that's a problem. 1 character, or all 35, it's wrong, and I don't agree with it. I'll never be as good with any character as I've been with DK and I don't run into too many penguins. But know that when I fight you and take a stock off you for some odd reason.. I'm running out the clock.

Your description covers every single chaingrab and infinite in the game.

 

[RDK]

You dont know what you are talking about.

Just because melee didnt wanted to ban sheik's "infinite" it dosent mean brawl cant. Stop thinking that brawl rules is limited to what people think was OK in melee =/.

@Ankoku: How does it helps with the metagame to have 5 character nullified from Competitive basically because people didnt want to ban a infinite regrab?

I know we dont ban to make metagame better, but TO's ban things they think are banable to help them win money(more entrances). So if they want to bant it, they will.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Years and years of competitive knowledge aren't nullified because certain aspects of one Smash game aren't exactly similar to those in its predecessor.

Furthermore, it's not five characters, it's two. And even if it were five, that's still not enough to warrant a ban. Try more than half the cast.

And yes, TO's will do what they will, even if that includes being whiny scrubs.

Edit: Oh, and Swordgard, we all know you just unplug the other guy's controller a little bit, so it appears as if it's plugged in but it's really not, and then try to play it off like your amazing mindgames aren't allowing him to move his character.

 

[swordgard]

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Years and years of competitive knowledge aren't nullified because certain aspects of one Smash game aren't exactly similar to those in its predecessor.

Furthermore, it's not five characters, it's two. And even if it were five, that's still not enough to warrant a ban. Try more than half the cast.

And yes, TO's will do what they will, even if that includes being whiny scrubs.

Edit: Oh, and Swordgard, we all know you just unplug the other guy's controller a little bit, so it appears as if it's plugged in but it's really not, and then try to play it off like your amazing mindgames aren't allowing him to move his character.

Why do you think sandbag is banned from tourney use and you need a device to use him.


Hes friccking broken!!!!!!!!!


Either way, this topic is really ridiculous, dont ban d3s infinite. We dont ban stuff unless its a last resort.

 

[MoW_G]

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Years and years of competitive knowledge aren't nullified because certain aspects of one Smash game aren't exactly similar to those in its predecessor.

Furthermore, it's not five characters, it's two. And even if it were five, that's still not enough to warrant a ban. Try more than half the cast.

And yes, TO's will do what they will, even if that includes being whiny scrubs.

Edit: Oh, and Swordgard, we all know you just unplug the other guy's controller a little bit, so it appears as if it's plugged in but it's really not, and then try to play it off like your amazing mindgames aren't allowing him to move his character.

Any abuse-able infinite imo is a broken mechanic. Marth's uthrow against falco in melee, DDD's infinite, IC's infinite as well as pika's. They weren't intended and they make the game awful. If any character has a completely unblockable strategy against another character, then their matchup is broken. I don't care if it only one, or all thirty-five, it's unfair. The basis competition is to have settings that are fair so every player has a chance. If I saw a player pick DK and I countered with DDD and shut infinited' the sh*t out of him for an easy win, what skill does that show? Is that fair? Is that fun for either player?

 

[swordgard]

Any abuse-able infinite imo is a broken mechanic. Marth's uthrow against falco in melee, DDD's infinite, IC's infinite as well as pika's. They weren't intended and they make the game awful. If any character has a completely unblockable strategy against another character, then their matchup is broken. I don't care if it only one, or all thirty-five, it's unfair. The basis competition is to have settings that are fair so every player has a chance. If I saw a player pick DK and I countered with DDD and shut infinited' the sh*t out of him for an easy win, what skill does that show? Is that fair? Is that fun for either player?

Fun is not a valid argument, maybe i enjoy being cged or cging.


And technically you CAN button mash out, your not unable to do anything, its just people dont believe in training in button mashing but w/e.


Either way, marth creates more 1 sided matchups than infinite does, is that fair? Ban marth? Fairness is not a valid argument, fairness is too subjective.

 

[zhao_guang]

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Years and years of competitive knowledge aren't nullified because certain aspects of one Smash game aren't exactly similar to those in its predecessor.

Furthermore, it's not five characters, it's two. And even if it were five, that's still not enough to warrant a ban. Try more than half the cast.

And yes, TO's will do what they will, even if that includes being whiny scrubs.

Edit: Oh, and Swordgard, we all know you just unplug the other guy's controller a little bit, so it appears as if it's plugged in but it's really not, and then try to play it off like your amazing mindgames aren't allowing him to move his character.

I absolutely love the "no u" at the start of your post LMAO

 

[MoW_G]

Fun is not a valid argument, maybe i enjoy being cged or cging.


And technically you CAN button mash out, your not unable to do anything, its just people dont believe in training in button mashing but w/e.


Either way, marth creates more 1 sided matchups than infinite does, is that fair? Ban marth? Fairness is not a valid argument, fairness is too subjective.

Fun is a VERY valid argument. If neither party has fun, why play the game? Why watch it? Why go to high-level tournaments if your main is DK? It is reasons such as this that brawl isn't on the MLG circuit; it's simply not fun.

Video games are built on fun. Halo is fun, melee was fun, SSB64 was fun. Brawl, because of these infinites and other lame strategies is not fun. Banning a part of a games meta because it isn't fun or enjoyable for even a small minority of players is not something I would normally support or endorse, but this is very different. This a broken mechanic that prevents the fairness and thus the legitimacy of competition.

And then I ask you this: Would you play brawl if you didn't have fun?

 

[swordgard]

Fun is a VERY valid argument. If neither party has fun, why play the game? Why watch it? Why go to high-level tournaments if your main is DK? It is reasons such as this that brawl isn't on the MLG circuit; it's simply not fun.

Video games are built on fun. Halo is fun, melee was fun, SSB64 was fun. Brawl, because of these infinites and other lame strategies is not fun. Banning a part of a games meta because it isn't fun or enjoyable for even a small minority of players is not something I would normally support or endorse, but this is very different. This a broken mechanic that prevents the fairness and thus the legitimacy of competition.

And then I ask you this: Would you play brawl if you didn't have fun?

Were playing for competition, not for fun. Fun is subjective, you cant say something is fun or isnt, you can say it is but ONLY for you. Now dont start spreading stuff you have no knowledge of(MLG not picking up brawl cause it isnt fun... brawl is more played than melee was tbh). We dont ban things because they arent fun, maybe the only char i find fun is CF, ban everyone else!!!


You are acting like a complete scrub over here.

 

[Zankoku]

And then I ask you this: Would you play brawl if you didn't have fun?

It is very clear that any intelligent, non-masochistic person would not play games that they do not find fun. It is also clear that, given the regular attendance in Brawl tournaments, arguments regarding how "not fun" the game is don't particularly apply well.

 

[MoW_G]

It is very clear that any intelligent, non-masochistic person would not play games that they do not find fun. It is also clear that, given the regular attendance in Brawl tournaments, arguments regarding how "not fun" the game is don't particularly apply well.

Just because tournament attendance says otherwise doesn't mean the game wouldn't be vastly improved by removing infinites.

 

[Zankoku]

In what way? Some completely immeasurable "fun factor?"