DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[swordgard]

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

Stop
Contradicting
Yourself
Every
2
Posts


You: MLG didnt pick up brawl due to it being unfun and thereforewhich leads to no people going, one big problem being d3s infinite
Us: Fun=subjective, moot point. Then again, we do have huge tourneys.
You: Tourney attendance doesnt count

 

[Demp]

Would we still be discussing this if it was Ganon who had the infinite on DK and other chars?

 

[Tien2500]

Would we still be discussing this if it was Ganon who had the infinite on DK and other chars?

No. Because Ganon has crap grab range and is a crap character overall. Since Ganon sucks so much nobody plays as him so the odds of running into the cg would be so small that it wouldn't hurt viability for any characters.

 

[Luxor]

Is that fun for either player?

i don't know about you, but i find winning very fun

EDIT: nice troll post Tien2500

 

[Tien2500]

i don't know about you, but i find winning very fun

EDIT: nice troll post Tien2500

How was that a troll post? Dude asked a question and he got a legitimate answer. Getting infinited by a common character is more detrimental then getting infinited by a bottom tier.

 

[MoW_G]

I'm saying the game in it's current state is imperfect, and not as much fun as it could be. The removal of infinites would not hurt tournament attendance. In fact, I'm quite certain it would improve it, I myself know 30+ good smash players in my area that completely STOPPED going to tournaments as soon as brawl infinites became a standard. The alter the fairness of a game, and thus the competitions legitimacy.


Take for instance Halo 3. The game is significantly "less fun" than halo 2, but tournament attendance compared to halo 2 doesn't support that, even though it is a consensus among vetrans of the series.
The same goes for the Melee/Brawl transition. Brawl is significantly sh*ttier than melee (at least among everyone I know) yet tournament attendance I'm sure says otherwise.

I'm sure if you mained DK and couldn't use any other character you would feel otherwise on this issue. I've won brawl matchups against very skilled DK's with the penguin simply because I understood the matchup, even though I was significantly less skilled. I don't think that's fair at all. All I had to do was attack and get in a good turtle and grab, and I knew I could take an easy stock. That isn't fair, it isn't skillful, and it's not fun.

Edit: I'm done with this argument. We could sit here all day and go nowhere. These chaingrabs are the reason this game isn't going MLG, and also the reason brawl+ is all I play now. That is all, have fun and take care

 

[Spelt]

The same goes for the Melee/Brawl transition. Brawl is significantly sh*ttier than melee (at least among everyone I know) yet tournament attendance I'm sure says otherwise.

that's completely opinion based.
and tournament results say otherwise.
that's awesome if you think that.
but the people going to brawl tournaments and NOT melee tournaments disagree

 

[mountain_tiger]

I seem to be a bit late, but I'd just like to say that I am against banning the infinite. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. There were characters that got screwed over by infinites in Melee too. Did those infinites get banned? No.

Besides, the infinite only affects a handful of characters. If it affected half the cast or something, THEN it might be worth banning, but as it stands... Simply get a secondary against Dedede and you're all set (well, in terms of infinites; there might still be other bad matchups obviously).

 

[Zankoku]

I'm saying the game in it's current state is imperfect, and not as much fun as it could be. The removal of infinites would not hurt tournament attendance. In fact, I'm quite certain it would improve it, I myself know 30+ good smash players in my area that completely STOPPED going to tournaments as soon as brawl infinites became a standard. The alter the fairness of a game, and thus the competitions legitimacy.

I don't get it. Are those 30+ good smashers players who previously placed in the money and suddenly all fell victim to four or so players who suddenly took all the money spots with Dedede's infinites? Or are you just throwing the term "good" around as much as you do the term "fun?"

Take for instance Halo 3. The game is significantly "less fun" than halo 2, but tournament attendance compared to halo 2 doesn't support that, even though it is a consensus among vetrans of the series.
The same goes for the Melee/Brawl transition. Brawl is significantly sh*ttier than melee (at least among everyone I know) yet tournament attendance I'm sure says otherwise.

Unfortunately (or maybe not), thinking in your area does not extrapolate to the rest of the country. Don't make assumptions that everyone in the US finds one game less fun than the other just because "everyone" (according to you) does so in your area.

I'm sure if you mained DK and couldn't use any other character you would feel otherwise on this issue. I've won brawl matchups against very skilled DK's with the penguin simply because I understood the matchup, even though I was significantly less skilled. I don't think that's fair at all. All I had to do was attack and get in a good turtle and grab, and I knew I could take an easy stock. That isn't fair, it isn't skillful, and it's not fun.

It's called a bad matchup. You pick a character and you know your matchups and deal with them, or you suffer. It's about as little "fun" as it is trying to out-snipe someone holding a scoped bolt-action rifle by using a shotgun. Banning something in either situation to "even things out" is also about as justified.

Edit: I'm done with this argument. We could sit here all day and go nowhere. These chaingrabs are the reason this game isn't going MLG, and also the reason brawl+ is all I play now. That is all, have fun and take care

I'm glad you feel that you speak for MLG, but, well..... you don't. BIG SHOCK.

 

[RDK]

I'm saying the game in it's current state is imperfect, and not as much fun as it could be. The removal of infinites would not hurt tournament attendance. In fact, I'm quite certain it would improve it, I myself know 30+ good smash players in my area that completely STOPPED going to tournaments as soon as brawl infinites became a standard. The alter the fairness of a game, and thus the competitions legitimacy.

Wrong. They alter the fairness of a matchup between Dedede and 2 other characters. The entire game? Not even close.

Your comparison between Halo and Smash is nonsensical, so I'm not even going to get into that.

I'm sure if you mained DK and couldn't use any other character you would feel otherwise on this issue.

The New 1-Step Solution to Weight Loss Not Getting ***** In Smash Tournaments!

1. Don't play as Donkey Kong.

I've won brawl matchups against very skilled DK's with the penguin simply because I understood the matchup, even though I was significantly less skilled. I don't think that's fair at all. All I had to do was attack and get in a good turtle and grab, and I knew I could take an easy stock. That isn't fair, it isn't skillful, and it's not fun.

I've won Brawl matchups against very skilled Captain Falcons with MK simply because I understood the matchup, even though I was significantly less skilled. I don't think that's fair at all. All I had to do was attack and get in a good turtle and grab not be incredibly terrible, and I knew I could take an easy stock. That isn't fair, it isn't skillful, and it's not fun.

Therefore......ban everything that might be remotely unfair to [insert character here].

 

[Maniclysane]

i don't know about you, but i find winning very fun

EDIT: nice troll post Tien2500

Nice crying.

 

[Nanaki]

I'm saying the game in it's current state is imperfect, and not as much fun as it could be. The removal of infinites would not hurt tournament attendance. In fact, I'm quite certain it would improve it, I myself know 30+ good smash players in my area that completely STOPPED going to tournaments as soon as brawl infinites became a standard. The alter the fairness of a game, and thus the competitions legitimacy.

Your friends are total scrubs, just like you.

Your region doesn't speak for the entirety of the smash community. And nobody gives a crap about what's 'fair' in a competitive game, unless the entire game revolves around it. This game does not revolve around infinites. Scrub.

Take for instance Halo 3. The game is significantly "less fun" than halo 2, but tournament attendance compared to halo 2 doesn't support that, even though it is a consensus among vetrans of the series.
The same goes for the Melee/Brawl transition. Brawl is significantly sh*ttier than melee (at least among everyone I know) yet tournament attendance I'm sure says otherwise.

Probably because 'fun' has nothing to do with...anything in competitive gaming? If you care about 'fun', don't play competitively. Amazingly enough, people don't compete in tournaments to have 'fun', they do it to make money and prove they're the best. Scrub.

I'm sure if you mained DK and couldn't use any other character you would feel otherwise on this issue. I've won brawl matchups against very skilled DK's with the penguin simply because I understood the matchup, even though I was significantly less skilled. I don't think that's fair at all. All I had to do was attack and get in a good turtle and grab, and I knew I could take an easy stock. That isn't fair, it isn't skillful, and it's not fun.

There's this crazy thing you could do - I know it's going to sound crazy, but just trust me here:

Don't main DK competitively.

Has any other fighting game you've ever played had a completely full roster of tournament viable characters? Have even half been truly viable? Oh wait, you've never played other fighters competitively. Only Halo, apparently. Scrub.

Edit: I'm done with this argument. We could sit here all day and go nowhere. These chaingrabs are the reason this game isn't going MLG, and also the reason brawl+ is all I play now. That is all, have fun and take care

Or maybe this game isn't going MLG because it's on a floaty engine and doesn't require much tech skill. Or MK. It's definitely not DDD's infinite, though. Scrub.

This might be the single worst post I've seen on these boards that was attempting to be serious. Each and every part of it is utter crap.

In short, you reek heavily of scrub.

 

[shinyspoon42]

While we are all QQing about unfair things, does anyone else find it unfair that people can grab you out of your shield? I really think we should ban grabs, then Bowser would move up the tier list, and imo its all about making bad characters viable. Hey, how about we play with the rule that MK isn't allowed to use attacks, because then alot of characters would have a better matchup.

/car-chasm

 

[Luxor]

Nice crying.

...Did I omit the part where I said I played as D3? lol @_@

Honestly, there are no sound arguments for banning the infinite short of increasing tourney attendance, etc.

 

[Tien2500]

...Did I omit the part where I said I played as D3? lol @_@

Honestly, there are no sound arguments for banning the infinite short of increasing tourney attendance, etc.

The argument against it is that it really in no way benefits the game, the risk/reward of Dedede's grab is out of whack, and banning it would make two characters viable. So the pros of banning it outweigh the cons in my opinion.

 

[_Keno_]

I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be banned. Its obviously completely broken when used against DK and the other standables. At least in melee, you could DI toward platforms or the ledge to eventually get out of sheiks CGs. You have nothing here.

Saying it's not broken is saying that skill is actually involved...but it just isn't.

Oh well, I don't play any of the characters involved.

 

[Nanaki]

While we are all QQing about unfair things, does anyone else find it unfair that people can grab you out of your shield? I really think we should ban grabs, then Bowser would move up the tier list, and imo its all about making bad characters viable. Hey, how about we play with the rule that MK isn't allowed to use attacks, because then alot of characters would have a better matchup.

/car-chasm

The crazy thing is that people actually brought up the idea (being serious) of banning MK from using the B button (have to set the controls to have no specials available on the controller at all). Even worse - quite a few people were on board.

I mean, seriously, wtf.

The argument against it is that it really in no way benefits the game, the risk/reward of Dedede's grab is out of whack, and banning it would make two characters viable. So the pros of banning it outweigh the cons in my opinion.

Where do you stand on the MK ban? All of those reasons certainly apply to him as a character too, though it would make many more characters viable.

At least be consistent.

Edit:

I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be banned. Its obviously completely broken when used against DK and the other standables. At least in melee, you could DI toward platforms or the ledge to eventually get out of sheiks CGs. You have nothing here.

Saying it's not broken is saying that skill is actually involved...but it just isn't.

Oh well, I don't play any of the characters involved.

Saying it's not broken is saying that you don't have to play any of those characters, and there are still plenty of viable characters to choose from. You totally contradicted yourself with the last sentence of your post, as that's 100% the solution to the "problem".

 

[shinyspoon42]

Heres the breaks;

D3's infinite affects a few matchups- Not the whole game. Guess what, everyone of the characters he can infinite he still has advantageous matches with anyways. Learn to use the counterpick system, and stop trying to ban stuff.

 

[_Keno_]

Saying it's not broken is saying that you don't have to play any of those characters, and there are still plenty of viable characters to choose from. You totally contradicted yourself with the last sentence of your post, as that's 100% the solution to the "problem".

There were no contradictions in my post

I was just stating that it is not fair to the people who play those characters if the chaingrab exists. And counterpicking is not always an option.

Lets say you play a guy's Kirby with DK and win. Then he counterpicks DDD as a character. You automatically lose that game because of the CG. You can not switch characters because you are being counterpicked, not him.

The only way for this not to happen is if
A. The standing infinite was banned or
B. Nobody mained DK or the other characters since they are completely nonviable due to the CG.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Heres the breaks;

D3's infinite affects a few matchups- Not the whole game. Guess what, everyone of the characters he can infinite he still has advantageous matches with anyways. Learn to use the counterpick system, and stop trying to ban stuff.

...Fine.

Here's my overall Q though:

Edit: What's wrong with banning it?

That question has been left to die without a legitimate answer. No need to answer it now since the battle's over. -_-

 

[_Keno_]

Heres the breaks;

D3's infinite affects a few matchups- Not the whole game. Guess what, everyone of the characters he can infinite he still has advantageous matches with anyways. Learn to use the counterpick system, and stop trying to ban stuff.

Advantageous is very different from ridiculously hard.

 

[Nanaki]

There were no contradictions in my post

I was just stating that it is not fair to the people who play those characters if the chaingrab exists. And counterpicking is not always an option.

There's that word again. I swear, 'fair' and 'fun' should be totally eliminated from this discussion and receive infractions when they're brought up. Is it fair that Ganon gets totally destroyed by every character in the game? We should ban everyone and just do Ganon dittos, otherwise the game's not 'fair'.

And counterpicking is always an option. Do you not know how it works?

Lets say you play a guy's Kirby with DK and win. Then he counterpicks DDD as a character. You automatically lose that game because of the CG. You can not switch characters because you are being counterpicked, not him.

Those are the breaks for continuing to play DK after the first round (or in general, but I digress). You have the option to change your character. Here's how CPing works.

1) Loser picks a stage.
2) Winner picks their character (does NOT have to stay as the same character as round 1).
3) Loser picks their character.

You can easily avoid the infinite if you think your opponent will CP D3 on you.

The only way for this not to happen is if
A. The standing infinite was banned or
B. Nobody mained DK or the other characters since they are completely nonviable due to the CG.

The correct answer is B. What do I win?

They aren't nonviable, but they're very limited to fights where you know you wont' be facing D3 (in other words, they're viable as CP characters).

 

[Tien2500]

Where do you stand on the MK ban? All of those reasons certainly apply to him as a character too, though it would make many more characters viable.

At least be consistent.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds . Anyway its a different situation. Because banning the CG takes away nothing of value from the game. Banning MK is taking away a character from the game. I think increasing character viability is a good thing. Its not the be all end all that we should use as the basis for any decision but if we can increase character diversity while losing nothing than I think it should be done.

As for MK I'm still a bit undecided about that but I lean towards ban.

 

[shinyspoon42]

There were no contradictions in my post

I was just stating that it is not fair to the people who play those characters if the chaingrab exists. And counterpicking is not always an option.

Lets say you play a guy's Kirby with DK and win. Then he counterpicks DDD as a character. You automatically lose that game because of the CG. You can not switch characters because you are being counterpicked, not him.

The only way for this not to happen is if
A. The standing infinite was banned or
B. Nobody mained DK or the other characters since they are completely nonviable due to the CG.

Yes it is to both.

You win 1 match. He CPs well and wins 1. Guess what, the last game of the set YOU have the CP, not him. This is how the CP system works. If you decide to stay w/ the character that gets infinited then you should lose.

EDIT: nanaki ninja'd me, ****. >.<

 

[_Keno_]

(directed at Nanaki) I know how counterpicking works, I was implying that after you win with a character, you tend to keeping using that character, and that it is too late to switch once you know that they are counterpicking DDD.

And whats wrong with fairness? I'm not saying we should be playing balanced brawl or anything, I'm simply saying that if there is a single move that is obviously broken to the point that the match-up is 10-0 or 9-1, it should be banned.

 

[Nanaki]

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds . Anyway its a different situation. Because banning the ban takes away nothing of value from the game. Banning MK is taking away a character from the game. I think increasing character viability is a good thing. Its not the be all end all that we should use as the basis for any decision but if we can increase character diversity while losing nothing than I think it should be done.

As for MK I'm still a bit undecided about that but I lean towards ban.

Yay for Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes. But it's foolish consistency that's the hobgoblin of small minds, not just consistency.

Why exactly is increasing character viability a good thing? It sounds simple, but what are the benefits to the game itself from having more characters to choose from?

And banning MK would likely make more characters viable than banning the infinite, even with the removal of one (MK).

tbh, the only infinite-able character that would be truly viable without the infinite is DK. The others need a whole lot of luck and a vastly superior player to stand a chance at actually winning anything.

Edit: @CHEAP PEACH - fairness is completely and totally subjective. That's why it's not a good criteria for a ban.

Case in point: IC's grab. Being able to shieldgrab anything Ganon does and infinite him afterwards makes that matchup easily as hard as any DDD infinite matchup. Ban IC's infinite? Ban for just the Ganon matchup? What's fair?

 

[My Cat Owns]

Even though the SBR does not ban DDD's standing infinite, I have seen the vast majority of tournaments ban the infinite anyway to this day.

As a person who has been against banning the infinite since day 1, it continues to perplex me to this day why exactly the infinite warrants a ban from the majority of the community. I am generally a conservative person when it comes to taking action in the form of stage bans or rules changes, and I am just not seeing the criteria that DDD's infinite meets that should warrant a ban.

It's not broken or overcentralizing.

DDD is already top tier. He doesn't need anything else to put him above even a couple of characters.

But apparently, SBR agrees with you for one reason or another, so you must be on to something

 

[RDK]

...Fine.

Here's my overall Q though:

Edit: What's wrong with banning it?

That question has been left to die without a legitimate answer. No need to answer it now since the battle's over. -_-

No, it hasn't been left to die without a legitimate answer; you're just purposely inclined to not read any of the multitude of answers freely given by anti-ban. There are plenty of things "wrong" with banning it. Read any of the past 10 pages.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds . Anyway its a different situation. Because banning the CG takes away nothing of value from the game.

Are you guys just plain stupid? Do you not understand that not everyone has the same set of values?

It seems some of you in here are mentally incapable of actually following the discussion. This thread consists of new pro-ban people coming and and regurgitating the same garbage arguments over and over again.

Banning MK is taking away a character from the game. I think increasing character viability is a good thing. Its not the be all end all that we should use as the basis for any decision but if we can increase character diversity while losing nothing than I think it should be done..

......so, let me paraphrase. We shouldn't do this because it may create a sticky situation farther down the line, but **** the future, let's be ******* and just go for broke.

Did I nail it?

 

[Ripple]

I don't like how a mid tier character is actually the least viable character in the game because of 1 characters grab game.

 

[Tien2500]

Yay for Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes. But it's foolish consistency that's the hobgoblin of small minds, not just consistency.

Why exactly is increasing character viability a good thing? It sounds simple, but what are the benefits to the game itself from having more characters to choose from?

And banning MK would likely make more characters viable than banning the infinite, even with the removal of one (MK).

tbh, the only infinite-able character that would be truly viable without the infinite is DK. The others need a whole lot of luck and a vastly superior player to stand a chance at actually winning anything.

Edit: @CHEAP PEACH - fairness is completely and totally subjective. That's why it's not a good criteria for a ban.

Case in point: IC's grab. Being able to shieldgrab anything Ganon does and infinite him afterwards makes that matchup easily as hard as any DDD infinite matchup. Ban IC's infinite? Ban for just the Ganon matchup? What's fair?

I'm not sure what you mean by the game itself really. More options and playstyles available is definitely good thing. A more diverse cast means likely more tournament attendance which is good for the competitive scene obviously. Its more interesting for spectators which is good for drawing interest. Generally but not always more characters is better for balance. I think if you asked people whether they'd prefer a game with 8 playable characters or 36 I think the choice would be clear (all other factors being equal of course). There is a reason that there is a trend in fighting games towards always adding more and more characters and a reason characters are popular as DLC.

Again banning MK is way different because you're taking away a character and I maintain that is something of value (especially when he happens to be the most popular character of the game). I don't think there is any value to keeping the chaingrab which makes banning MK a tougher decision.

 

[Nanaki]

I don't like how a mid tier character is actually the least viable character in the game because of 1 characters grab game.

I don't like how you think he's a mid tier character if he's the least viable character in the game.

And Ganon's still way worse.

 

[Brinzy]

I don't understand how people think they're being so smart with their "easy" solution of just banning it because it "hurts nobody", yet apparently this wonderful intelligence of theirs somehow isn't enough for them to realize that they're asking for disadvantageous matchups when they have a 100% chance of getting even better odds by playing another ****ing character.

 

[Tien2500]

RDK do not call me stupid. I think it is you who has to learn that other people have different values. I do not see any value in keeping the chain grab and nothing you have said in this topic has convinced me otherwise yet.

And no you misunderstood my last part. I was saying simply that the MK ban is a different situation that is not comparable to this one. That is all.

 

[Ragnar0k]

The non ban community offers no logical argument as to why it shouldn't be banned. All they say is no and then type a bunch of irrelevant stuff bashing the pro banners and ask us things like why having more character viability is good.

 

[Nanaki]

I'm not sure what you mean by the game itself really. More options and playstyles available is definitely good thing. A more diverse cast means likely more tournament attendance which is good for the competitive scene obviously. Its more interesting for spectators which is good for drawing interest. Generally but not always more characters is better for balance. I think if you asked people whether they'd prefer a game with 8 playable characters or 36 I think the choice would be clear (all other factors being equal of course). There is a reason that there is a trend in fighting games towards always adding more and more characters and a reason characters are popular as DLC.

Again banning MK is way different because you're taking away a character and I maintain that is something of value (especially when he happens to be the most popular character of the game). I don't think there is any value to keeping the chaingrab which makes banning MK a tougher decision.

Please provide me with proof that tournament attendance goes up significantly with character diversity.

Spectators are already at the event, why do we need to draw their interest more?

I see absolutely no reason that more characters = more balance.

Tournament goers (those that are serious about competing and winning) don't care how many characters are in the game or viable, they care about which character gives them the best chance of winning.

The reason there is a trend of adding more and more characters in fighting games and in DLC isn't for competitive purposes, it's to sell copies of the game. Competitively, it makes no real difference. You're venturing more and more into the realm of 'fun', and away from competition, which is what this ban has an affect on.

I don't understand how people think they're being so smart with their "easy" solution of just banning it because it "hurts nobody", yet apparently this wonderful intelligence of theirs somehow isn't enough for them to realize that they're asking for disadvantageous matchups when they have a 100% chance of getting even better odds by playing another ****ing character.

Word. This guy - he gets it.

 

[RDK]

RDK do not call me stupid. I think it is you who has to learn that other people have different values. I do not see any value in keeping the chain grab and nothing you have said in this topic has convinced me otherwise yet.

That's the point. And yes, I get it; you do not.

I don't care about your values, and you don't care about mine. How can you use subjective concepts like "pros", "cons", "fairness", and "unfairness" as a basis for a ban? What is "fairness"? Who gets to decide these things?

This is exactly why nobody takes pro-ban seriously in these types of discussions. It is quite literally whining on your part to come in here and demand that the entire metagame be changed to fit the purposes of your main at the expense of other characters; a main that nobody should be maining anyway because they suck so bad.

That's the point. Some guy sitting next to you at a tourney probably thinks "so and so" is gay and detrimental to his character. Are you really going to push the idea that all it takes is for someone to consider something "unfair" - whatever that even means - in order to get it banned?

Didn't think so.

 

[Tien2500]

Please provide me with proof that tournament attendance goes up significantly with character diversity.

Spectators are already at the event, why do we need to draw their interest more?

I see absolutely no reason that more characters = more balance.

Tournament goers (those that are serious about competing and winning) don't care how many characters are in the game or viable, they care about which character gives them the best chance of winning.

The reason there is a trend of adding more and more characters in fighting games and in DLC isn't for competitive purposes, it's to sell copies of the game. Competitively, it makes no real difference. You're venturing more and more into the realm of 'fun', and away from competition, which is what this ban has an affect on.

I'm talking about the potential spectators out there who may be checking the came out on closed circuit or whatever and think its cool.

As for some sort of empirical proof of attendance going up with character diverstity. Obviously no way I could get that sort of data. Or if there were its more effort to obtain than I'm willing to put into this argument.

I think fun is very important. There is a reason that people pick brawl over other competitive pursuits and over other competitive games. Because for whatever reason they find the game to be more enjoyable than the other alternatives.

So I've answered your questions to the best of my ability so I ask you. What are the benefits to keeping Dedede's infinite?

 

[Nanaki]

The non ban community offers no logical argument as to why it shouldn't be banned. All they say is no and then type a bunch of irrelevant stuff bashing the pro banners and ask us things like why having more character viability is good.

You've offered no logical argument thus far. Prove to me that banning this infinite is any different than banning any technique that skews a matchup in any character's favor.

Protip: It's not. Stop crying.

That's the point. And yes, I get it; you do not.

I don't care about your values, and you don't care about mine. How can you use subjective concepts like "pros", "cons", "fairness", and "unfairness" as a basis for a ban? What is "fairness"? Who gets to decide these things?

This is exactly why nobody takes pro-ban seriously in these types of discussions. It is quite literally whining on your part to come in here and demand that the entire metagame be changed to fit the purposes of your main at the expense of other characters; a main that nobody should be maining anyway because they suck so bad.

That's the point. Some guy sitting next to you at a tourney probably thinks "so and so" is gay and detrimental to his character. Are you really going to push the idea that all it takes is for someone to consider something "unfair" - whatever that even means - in order to get it banned?

Didn't think so.

But...but...this one's infinite!! It's...it's...easy to do! ...and stuff.

BOO FREAKIN HOO.

 

[My Cat Owns]

Please provide me with proof that tournament attendance goes up significantly with character diversity.

Spectators are already at the event, why do we need to draw their interest more?

I see absolutely no reason that more characters = more balance.

Tournament goers (those that are serious about competing and winning) don't care how many characters are in the game or viable, they care about which character gives them the best chance of winning.

The reason there is a trend of adding more and more characters in fighting games and in DLC isn't for competitive purposes, it's to sell copies of the game. Competitively, it makes no real difference. You're venturing more and more into the realm of 'fun', and away from competition, which is what this ban has an affect on.



Word. This guy - he gets it.

Lemme guess. You play MK then?

 

[Ragnar0k]

I hate to say it but every time I read an anti ban person's posts about why it should not be banned I feel like nothing they are saying has any meaning. It all feels like filler just to make their posts seem important.