DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[MoW_G]

Eh, this thread is solely based on opinion and beliefs, and this argument could go on for decades without ever receiving a good answer. Continuing to lurk this post(however difficult it was since I was so harshly flamed for my opinions), I've realized I think it's lame, but my opinion doesn't really matter to those who think otherwise, and vice-versa. Some people ban it so DK mains aren't alienated, some people don't because they like the mechanics the way they are. This seems to be based solely on people's opinion of the match-ups.

I do think Peach has a good point with this quote, he basically summed up everything I wish I could have gotten across, even though my posts were all over the place.

Ganon is royally screwed even if you took his 5 worst matchups out of the game. DK could actually be a decent character if DDD couldn't infinite him. That is the difference.

and as a side-note, it's called a **** infinite. an infinite. meaning never ending. meaning I can't lose if I can time pressing a single button. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but does anyone remember the days of the anti-cheezing rules of broken fighting games when we were all little?

Edit: For the love of God, please respect other people's opinions. Calling people names because of the way they feel about single situation in a game is unwarranted, childish, and pathetic. If you want to flame someone for their opinions, go elsewhere.

 

[Spelt]

i don't see anyone calling anybody names, or flaming.


and that whole post was based on opinions and beliefs, btw.

 

[mountain_tiger]

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

Pick a secondary for any Dedede mains you may face. Problem solved.

 

[Red Arremer]

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

Fox is mid tier. He gets infinited by Pikachu's chaingrabs becoming the least viable character in the game. Ban Pikachu's chaingrabs.

 

[swordgard]

Eh, this thread is solely based on opinion and beliefs, and this argument could go on for decades without ever receiving a good answer. Continuing to lurk this post(however difficult it was since I was so harshly flamed for my opinions), I've realized I think it's lame, but my opinion doesn't really matter to those who think otherwise, and vice-versa. Some people ban it so DK mains aren't alienated, some people don't because they like the mechanics the way they are. This seems to be based solely on people's opinion of the match-ups.

I do think Peach has a good point with this quote, he basically summed up everything I wish I could have gotten across, even though my posts were all over the place.


and as a side-note, it's called a **** infinite. an infinite. meaning never ending. meaning I can't lose if I can time pressing a single button. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but does anyone remember the days of the anti-cheezing rules of broken fighting games when we were all little?

Edit: For the love of God, please respect other people's opinions. Calling people names because of the way they feel about single situation in a game is unwarranted, childish, and pathetic. If you want to flame someone for their opinions, go elsewhere.

Here is the problem.


You say its all about belief and opinnion and therefore useless to argue. Good way to avoid any type of debate, this is why i dont like subjectivists.

We are arguing using known and well accepted standards here, and backing them up as to why they are the way they are. You on the other hand are just stating its unfun, unfair and so on basing yourself on what you feel is better. Guess what, A) Your arguments are subjective as hell, which means you cannot use them as they are pretty hard to quantify. B)Do not have much reasonning behind them, therefore you are having such huge trouble explaining why. C) We can see its plainly subjective, hence BS.


EDIT: We did give you a good answer, you just plainly strawmanned the argument. Also, i don't respect your argument, nor will I if you invoke the love of god, i don't love him >.> .

 

[NatP]

Ok I have a question. How does DDD not having a standing infinite hurt him in any way? He would still have the chaingrab that he has on half of the brawl cast so who cares about the si. Infact, are there any downsides that can emerge from banning the SI? AT ALL? Or do you just not want to ban this infinite just because?

 

[Zankoku]

Ok I have a question. How does DDD not having a standing infinite hurt him in any way? He would still have the chaingrab that he has on half of the brawl cast so who cares about the si. Infact, are there any downsides that can emerge from banning the SI? AT ALL? Or do you just not want to ban this infinite just because?

As I've been trying to say several times, if the game is still playable without a ban, then it is preferable not to enforce a ban.

 

[Nanaki]

Eh, this thread is solely based on opinion and beliefs, and this argument could go on for decades without ever receiving a good answer. Continuing to lurk this post(however difficult it was since I was so harshly flamed for my opinions), I've realized I think it's lame, but my opinion doesn't really matter to those who think otherwise, and vice-versa. Some people ban it so DK mains aren't alienated, some people don't because they like the mechanics the way they are. This seems to be based solely on people's opinion of the match-ups.

I do think Peach has a good point with this quote, he basically summed up everything I wish I could have gotten across, even though my posts were all over the place.


and as a side-note, it's called a **** infinite. an infinite. meaning never ending. meaning I can't lose if I can time pressing a single button. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but does anyone remember the days of the anti-cheezing rules of broken fighting games when we were all little?

Edit: For the love of God, please respect other people's opinions. Calling people names because of the way they feel about single situation in a game is unwarranted, childish, and pathetic. If you want to flame someone for their opinions, go elsewhere.

I'll admit I may have overly flamed you by calling you a scrub multiple times in a single post. And your friends. I shouldn't have done that.

I apologize for flaming and calling you names.

That said, your opinion is still completely based on your opinion of what is 'fun' and 'fair'. Those things may have been factors when we were playing SF2 as kids and nobody could get past Dhalsim's stretchy arms (lol), but they do not factor into the discussion at hand.

Long story short, we're arguing for a competitive standard based on a solid foundation (don't ban something unless the game revolves entirely around that one character/technique), while you're arguing that 'It's not fun'. Your argument is entirely subjective, while ours is entirely objective.

Many things in this game could be argued to be 'not fun' or 'not fair'. That does not make them worthy of banning by the competitive standard.

i don't see anyone calling anybody names, or flaming.


and that whole post was based on opinions and beliefs, btw.

I think he was referring to me. Several pages back.

Though you're right in your 2nd sentence.

Fox is mid tier. He gets infinited by Pikachu's chaingrabs becoming the least viable character in the game. Ban Pikachu's chaingrabs.

I still haven't heard a good answer to this. Maybe Fox has 'more than 1 problem' so we can't fix him, as it would take more than 1 fix. I don't see the logic there.

Here is the problem.


You say its all about belief and opinnion and therefore useless to argue. Good way to avoid any type of debate, this is why i dont like subjectivists.

We are arguing using known and well accepted standards here, and backing them up as to why they are the way they are. You on the other hand are just stating its unfun, unfair and so on basing yourself on what you feel is better. Guess what, A) Your arguments are subjective as hell, which means you cannot use them as they are pretty hard to quantify. B)Do not have much reasonning behind them, therefore you are having such huge trouble explaining why. C) We can see its plainly subjective, hence BS.


EDIT: We did give you a good answer, you just plainly strawmanned the argument. Also, i don't respect your argument, nor will I if you invoke the love of god, i don't love him >.> .

This post is truth.

Ok I have a question. How does DDD not having a standing infinite hurt him in any way? He would still have the chaingrab that he has on half of the brawl cast so who cares about the si. Infact, are there any downsides that can emerge from banning the SI? AT ALL? Or do you just not want to ban this infinite just because?

This is not the point of the argument. Please read the last 10 pages or so.

The infinite should not be banned because it does not meet the criteria for banning by a competitive standard.

Anyone is free to argue whatever they want to be banned in terms of a NON-competitive standard. Ban whatever you want when you play with your friends. Banning something as a competitive standard requires more evidence than 'it's not fair'.

 

[Flayl]

They're situational and are arguably about as simple to avoid...

Complete and utterly wrong. Chaingrab to ledge -> infinite.

 

[Zankoku]

Wait, so you're arguing for the banning of the ledge infinite, as well? Are you also for banning the wall infinite?

 

[Flayl]

Wait, so you're arguing for the banning of the ledge infinite, as well? Are you also for banning the wall infinite?

I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out the very dumb mistakes that are being repeated over and over.

In my opinion Brawl would be a better game without the infinites, but there's just too much broken and stupid **** in it to just ban dedede's.

 

[FatJackieChan]

I'm not advocating anything, I'm just pointing out the very dumb mistakes that are being repeated over and over.

In my opinion Brawl would be a better game without the infinites, but there's just too much broken and stupid **** in it to just ban dedede's.

Honestly what is wrong with infinites? They take skill to use, and it only affects so many characters. They are perfectly fair. If a player can do the infinite long enough and the other can't find a way out that is still a match of skill, just applied to Brawl in a new way.



On Subject: Ice Climbers have a move that can chain grab many people until death and can afford to charge a smash move for the kill. A few people can get out (T Link by floatiness and Marth by up-B after 45%), but the majority of the guys suffer. The infinite is very difficult to pull off and it takes hours and hours of practice. This hurts more people than D3's and makes points

1) If this isn't banned, why ban D3's first?
2) If it affects how good a character is, (IC's are mostly good because of this in my opinion) why take it away?
3) and by taking it away it would only help certain characters, not the ones who can get out. It changes the game in such a way that we are over centralizing and simplifying the game, which with our amount of AT's is a bad idea.

No character specific move has been banned. Some would say that MK's cape glitch is banned, but that is simply stalling.

The rule of stalling is: A character is making the game impossible to continue by getting rid of all conflict. Not by running away, but just by making it impossible to continue.

Tell me how conflict can go on if one of the opponents is not there? If it hasn't happened yet then there is no reason that we should start now. D3's gives characters unneeded help, which we do not do for anyone, especially high tiers. It has never been done before, so there is no reason to do it. And if we are gonna ban something, there are other things to ban first.

If you want to change this rule, change the rule of stalling. The rule of stalling also states:
Any infinite can go for 300% so the game is not being stalled. Simply get that number lowered and it is not an issue.

Honestly I don't care how long the infinite works as long as I, or anyone can do it.

 

[Overclassed]

 

[Kewkky]

Cool kids don't fall for infinites. Cooler kids make you fall into their infinites.

If you want to avoid DDD's infinites, instead of using one of the 4-5 people who get infinited, why not use one of the other 34 characters that don't get infinited? I hear some of them can't even be CG'd by DDD... As for the ICs, you'll just have to get used to it, since the main objective in the IC's game is to grab you. Take that away, and you might as well remove the character from tourneys. There are also characters whom the ICs have extreme difficulty grabbing, like Snake and his camping + disjoints...

This game has a counterpick system for a reason. Learn to use it to its fullest.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Lol, yeah.

So I read page 19, all the answers on that page. Look at the page yourself anti-ban. They're not answering the question. Let me revise it: Can you give me one bad thing that'll happen if you ban the infinite?

It may not be a big problem, but small problems are usually the ones that need fixing sooner or later.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Lombardi, what Ankoku and others are saying is that the question you're asking is not the question that should be posed while advocating for a ban.

 

[Luigi player]

Cool kids don't fall for infinites. Cooler kids make you fall into their infinites.

If you want to avoid DDD's infinites, instead of using one of the 4-5 people who get infinited, why not use one of the other 34 characters that don't get infinited? I hear some of them can't even be CG'd by DDD... As for the ICs, you'll just have to get used to it, since the main objective in the IC's game is to grab you. Take that away, and you might as well remove the character from tourneys. There are also characters whom the ICs have extreme difficulty grabbing, like Snake and his camping + disjoints...

This game has a counterpick system for a reason. Learn to use it to its fullest.

The problem people have is why remove those characters from the game just for this stupid infinite?

And ICs aren't that easy even if they don't grab you. The problem is you have to play in the air the whole time and you're really predictable. And if you make 1 mistake you lose a stock. They're tourney viable, even if they don't get to grab you, but the existence of the infinite is helping them so if they couldn't do it they would be worse...

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The problem people have is why remove those characters from the game just for this stupid infinite?

Why remove the infinite just for those stupid characters?

 

[_Keno_]

Honestly what is wrong with infinites? They take skill to use.They are perfectly fair. If a player can do the infinite long enough and the other can't find a way out that is still a match of skill, just applied to Brawl in a new way.

None of that is true in the least bit. The only thing that could be argued is "fair," and thats because it is subjective. (right RDK? lol)

And infinites are infinite because there are no ways out.

 

[Luigi player]

Why remove the infinite just for those stupid characters?

Because we like variety?

Too bad they didn't have any play testers for Smash. It would be so easy to change it, but it exists... why Sakurai?! But then again, we could just ban it and the problem wouldn't exist. There are no downsides it'd bring.

It's still impossible for me to understand the people who don't want it banned.

Just by looking at it you know it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Kewkky]

Why remove the infinite just for those stupid characters?

Exactly. Practically 4 of those 5 characters have problems in the tourney scene anyway. Samus, Ganondorf, Luigi and Bowser don't do well even with DDD's infinite out of the way. Their MU ratios, discussed by those characters' mains, don't just say "thanks to the infinite, it's 0-100" without explaining how the MU would be if DDD didn't have it.

The only viable character that is really hindered by the infinite is DK, and removing a viable tactic for the sake of a single viable character is not really a bright idea to the solution. Might as well remove IC's chaingrabs in the G-Dorf MU as well.


And IC's are way worse without the CG. Once you know the MU, if the aren't allowed to chain grabs, you'll find yourself outdoing the IC main with less problem than half the MUs you'll ever see... Especially knowing you won't have to fear any 0-deaths. You might even be able to rush 'em down due to them not having any "sex kick" moves per sé.

Because we like variety?

Too bad they didn't have any play testers for Smash. It would be so easy to change it, but it exists... why Sakurai?! But then again, we could just ban it and the problem wouldn't exist. There are no downsides it'd bring.

It's still impossible for me to understand the people who don't want it banned.

Just by looking at it you know it shouldn't be allowed.

The point isn't that we're against variety, it's that... Why take away what makes one character exceedingly good, just to add 4 exceedingly bad ones? They'll still do real bad in tourney even if the infinite is removed, plus we'll have one less "good" character. To me, it's a lose-lose situation.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Because we like variety?

Too bad they didn't have any play testers for Smash. It would be so easy to change it, but it exists... why Sakurai?! But then again, we could just ban it and the problem wouldn't exist. There are no downsides it'd bring.

It's still impossible for me to understand the people who don't want it banned.

Just by looking at it you know it shouldn't be allowed.

This.

Take off the 10char minimum.

 

[Luigi player]

The point isn't that we're against variety, it's that... Why take away what makes one character exceedingly good, just to add 4 exceedingly bad ones?

Dedede wouldn't be worse. Only for players who are worse then the players of those characters.

 

[cutter]

Because we like variety?

Too bad they didn't have any play testers for Smash. It would be so easy to change it, but it exists... why Sakurai?! But then again, we could just ban it and the problem wouldn't exist. There are no downsides it'd bring.

It's still impossible for me to understand the people who don't want it banned.

Just by looking at it you know it shouldn't be allowed.

Let's ban Melee Sheik's chaingrab then!

inb4 "but Brawl is special!!!!1111"

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

The point isn't that we're against variety, it's that... Why take away what makes one character exceedingly good, just to add 4 exceedingly bad ones? They'll still do real bad in tourney even if the infinite is removed, plus we'll have one less "good" character. To me, it's a lose-lose situation.[/QUOTE]



You're one of the only people anti-bans I respect here since you answered the Q. You deserve a cookie.

Edit: cutter, you really need to stop caring the situation to something out of Melee. It doesn't help here.

 

[Luigi player]

Let's ban Melee Sheik's chaingrab then!

inb4 "but Brawl is special!!!!1111"

In Melee it isn't important if there are 0-deaths, because with 1 hit you have half a stock off your opponent anyway.

If DK would kill Dedede with 2 or 3 hits nobody would care about dieing from 1 hit.

 

[Brinzy]

Complete and utterly wrong. Chaingrab to ledge -> infinite.

Completely missed the point.

Argument being made is that SIs are so terrible because they can be done at any % and at any given time.

Ledge infinites =/= standing infinites and do not fit what people are arguing for. Thread title says it all.

They are situational and it's not more than five because there are only two that fall under standing infinites. The rest are situational, and that is a fact.

They are just as simple to avoid as SIs. (Read: avoid the matchup or play a stage that discourages this... only ledge infinites are even easier to scrap.)

You're one of the only people anti-bans I respect here since you answered the Q. You deserve a cookie.

That has been the answer given time and time again, but apparently you missed the memo.

 

[FatJackieChan]

The point isn't that we're against variety, it's that... Why take away what makes one character exceedingly good, just to add 4 exceedingly bad ones? They'll still do real bad in tourney even if the infinite is removed, plus we'll have one less "good" character. To me, it's a lose-lose situation.

Dude, wtf are you talking about? This has nothing to do with variety. It's not about making characters better or worse. It's not about the meta game. It shouldn't be banned because we don't give special bonuses to characters, not just because of how they do at tourneys.

EVERYONE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT STOP! It isn't about those 4 characters, they won't get special help because they are bad. The only reason that we would take it out is because it violates a rule, like stalling or breaking the game. If you say that the characters would do better because we get rid of it, we won't. If you say D3 will be worse because of it, we might. (We, as in not me, the Back room).

Nothing about the tier matters, nothing about that matters.

Why should it be banned?
It isn't fair - yes it is, play a different character or get out of the move when they screw up. People seem to think that you enter the tourney as 1 character and one character only! YOU CAN SWITCH! It is your fault if you play one of those bad characters against the King, just like it is your fault if you lose as Ganon against MK.

It is stalling- The stalling rule dictates that an infinite can go for 300%. Get the rule for stalling changed, not infinites.

Other characters would be better- First, read the friggin post. Second, I am gonna kill anyone who continues that argument.

Why shouldn't it be banned?
We have never banned a character specific move- MK's cape is just stalling. Stalling dictates that all conflict on the stage can't be continued. How can conflict go on if 1 of the guys is not there?

There are bigger issues- Ice Climbers can grab most people, and kill them if it happens. Play a character that can get out, like T Link and Marth. Every character has their use, it is your job to find out what you want to do in a situation.

It's not cheap- It takes practice to do. Practice the IC or D3 combo, it's hard. It takes skill to do it so if it happens deal.

Stop complaining about how it affects characters because that "don't mean squat!"

 

[Brinzy]

If DK would kill Dedede with 2 or 3 hits nobody would care about dieing from 1 hit.

Why do people keep bringing up these situations?

"If DDD had bad grab range/traction/etc nobody would care"

"If DDD died in two hits nobody would care"

"If DDD could be comboed to 90% by his victims nobody would care"


Don't discriminate. If Ganon was found to have an infinite on MK, based off of this logic I'm seeing over and over again, a lot of you against this would probably keep it in.

"No I wouldn't!"

Sure there are exceptions to this, but I'm not about to point fingers. However, if people are seriously using character bias like this and are too busy trying to help the underdog even though it shouldn't be viewed that way, what's stopping me from believing that if the topdog got his, tons of people would be inconsistent and let it happen?

"Oh, well Ganon has that infinite on MK, but MK utterly shuts him down anyway so it doesn't matter and he should keep it because he's a bad character."

It's not cheap- It takes practice to do. Practice the D3 combo, it's hard.

1) Set C-stick to grab
2) Spam it and you never miss a grab at all
3) There are no question marks here, it's a flat out profit

 

[Brinzy]

My mistake.

 

[AnDaLe]

DDD's infinite is gay, but its okay because i use it.

 

[Kewkky]

Dude, wtf are you talking about? This has nothing to do with variety. It's not about making characters better or worse. It's not about the meta game. It shouldn't be banned because we don't give special bonuses to characters, not just because of how they do at tourneys.

I was answering this:

Why remove the infinite just for those stupid characters?

Because we like variety?

Too bad they didn't have any play testers for Smash. It would be so easy to change it, but it exists... why Sakurai?! But then again, we could just ban it and the problem wouldn't exist. There are no downsides it'd bring.

It's still impossible for me to understand the people who don't want it banned.

Just by looking at it you know it shouldn't be allowed.

I quoted him for a reason, you know?

everything else you said

You're not really helping your side of the argument. They're saying they'd like explanations of why it should be banned, explanations that would make them understand our point of view... And all you're giving them is the same points that have been brought up time and again. Why not just put them in your words, so that they may see it in a different way?

Most of what you said was abstract. Next time, try making the points as concrete as possible, so everyone can read and be persuaded by what you're trying to say... Just repeating how it doesn't break the rules doesn't take away their feelings of "it's unfair"... Just like in the MK argument: people wanted him gone because, even if he didn't break any rules or met any ban 'criteria', he was still a very troublesome obstacle for most players... The argument never ended because people just kept repeating "He doesn't overcentralize" and "Learn the MU", instead of coming up with a more user-friendly explanation that would appeal to the majority of pro-bans.


Just my opinion.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Why do people keep bringing up these situations?

"If DDD had bad grab range/traction/etc nobody would care"

"If DDD died in two hits nobody would care"

"If DDD could be comboed to 90% by his victims nobody would care"


Don't discriminate. If Ganon was found to have an infinite on MK, based off of this logic I'm seeing over and over again, a lot of you against this would probably keep it in.

"No I wouldn't!"

Sure there are exceptions to this, but I'm not about to point fingers. However, if people are seriously using character bias like this and are too busy trying to help the underdog even though it shouldn't be viewed that way, what's stopping me from believing that if the topdog got his, tons of people would be inconsistent and let it happen?

"Oh, well Ganon has that infinite on MK, but MK utterly shuts him down anyway so it doesn't matter and he should keep it because he's a bad character."



1) Set C-stick to grab
2) Spam it and you never miss a grab at all
3) There are no question marks here, it's a flat out profit

This need revision:

"If D3's opponent died in one hit, we wouldn't care since D3 dies in two." Both sides have something to worry about.

Page 19 is really screwed up, but page 11 is much better. "Metagame: so people start taking advantage of the counterpicking and...bla bla." Don't worry, I see what you mean.

 

[FatJackieChan]

Why do people keep bringing up these situations?

"


Don't discriminate. If Ganon was found to have an infinite on MK, based off of this logic I'm seeing over and over again, a lot of you against this would probably keep it in.

"No I wouldn't!"

Sure there are exceptions to this, but I'm not about to point fingers. However, if people are seriously using character bias like this and are too busy trying to help the underdog even though it shouldn't be viewed that way, what's stopping me from believing that if the topdog got his, tons of people would be inconsistent and let it happen?

"Oh, well Ganon has that infinite on MK, but MK utterly shuts him down anyway so it doesn't matter and he should keep it because he's a bad character."



1) Set C-stick to grab
2) Spam it and you never miss a grab at all
3) There are no question marks here, it's a flat out profit

Ganon would be able to keep that move because it is fair, not because he is bad. Next, That strategy wouldn't work. Apparently you didn't try the combo! It takes a pummel to keep them in check, others it won't work. And guess what, Do you know how long it can take to get out of a grab? 2 frames. Each button you hit subtracts 8 frames from the total. IF you managed to hit all the buttons 2 times in 2 frames, you are free. Now it is a little more complicated don't you think? Technically you can get out, it is just difficult.

What side are you on man?

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

DDD's infinite is gay, but its okay because i use it.

...Scr- nevermind.

Sorry if this double posts.

 

[Brinzy]

Ganon would be able to keep that move because it is fair, not because he is bad. Next, That strategy wouldn't work. Apparently you didn't try the combo! It takes a pummel to keep them in check, others it won't work. And guess what, Do you know how long it can take to get out of a grab? 2 frames. Each button you hit subtracts 8 frames from the total. IF you managed to hit all the buttons 2 times in 2 frames, you are free. Now it is a little more complicated don't you think? Technically you can get out, it is just difficult.

What side are you on man?

... It's like I have to post the same thing four times but in different languages.

People are saying that it's unfair that DDD has it and then they bring up, "Well if DDD died in x amount of hits nobody would care about this", implying that DDD's longevity is somehow a factor in discussing whether or not we should ban this. Ganon is a worse character than DDD. My post was basically saying that if Ganon could do something to a top character like what DDD is doing now, people wouldn't want it banned because he's bad. This is obviously flawed thinking but it is the thinking of several people!

I would let him keep it as well. None of that was my opinion or anything - that was their train-of-thought which has flaws in it.

 

[Flayl]

Completely missed the point.

Argument being made is that SIs are so terrible because they can be done at any % and at any given time.

Ledge infinites =/= standing infinites and do not fit what people are arguing for. Thread title says it all.

They are situational and it's not more than five because there are only two that fall under standing infinites. The rest are situational, and that is a fact.

They are just as simple to avoid as SIs. (Read: avoid the matchup or play a stage that discourages this... only ledge infinites are even easier to scrap.)

There is only 1 that falls under standing infinite if you're going to be this dumb about it.

 

[FatJackieChan]

I was answering this:

I quoted him for a reason, you know?



You're not really helping your side of the argument. They're saying they'd like explanations of why it should be banned, explanations that would make them understand our point of view... And all you're giving them is the same points that have been brought up time and again. Why not just put them in your words, so that they may see it in a different way?

Most of what you said was abstract. Next time, try making the points as concrete as possible, so everyone can read and be persuaded by what you're trying to say... Just repeating how it doesn't break the rules doesn't take away their feelings of "it's unfair"... Just like in the MK argument: people wanted him gone because, even if he didn't break any rules or met any ban 'criteria', he was still a very troublesome obstacle for most players... The argument never ended because people just kept repeating "He doesn't overcentralize" and "Learn the MU", instead of coming up with a more user-friendly explanation that would appeal to the majority of pro-bans.


Just my opinion.

There are a few things that don't make sense there. If it is abstract, then I am not repeating the same thing. Even if people wanted MK banned, he is not. Part of brawl is to see "troublesome obstacles" and rise over them. Really the move isn't cheap. I know that you don't get that so I will do my best to explain why.

What are the issues? 4 characters suffer. Even though I don't believe that this is an issue I will do my best to refute it. There are other characters that can beat it. Most of you who want it banned most likely play these characters I presume. Can I ask you a question, not to make a point, but just because I am curious. Why don't you pick up a new character?
If you played a character that didn't suffer against the King, would the problem be solved? I play Marth, Pit, Snake, and Ganondorf. I don't care that Ganon gets hurt, and he gets killed by MK, so I play Snake.

That is the main issue I am hearing right now. Please retort!

EDIT!
Raphael: People are saying that it's unfair that DDD has it and then they bring up, "Well if DDD died in x amount of hits nobody would care about this", implying that DDD's longevity is somehow a factor in discussing whether or not we should ban this. Ganon is a worse character than DDD. My post was basically saying that if Ganon could do something to a top character like what DDD is doing now, people wouldn't want it banned because he's bad. This is obviously flawed thinking but it is the thinking of several people!

I would let him keep it as well. None of that was my opinion or anything - that was their train-of-thought which has flaws in it.

I agree, so why did you comment about my D3 comment? The 2 things do not relate. I am simply stating that their mindset of Ganon's would be fine because he is bad isn't true. In fact that it is fine because their is nothing wrong with it would be my thinking behind it. I am basically agreeing with you then. How good the king is has nothing to do with the banning of the move. And I understand that you are not saying that it does.

 

[Brinzy]

There is only 1 that falls under standing infinite if you're going to be this dumb about it.

Point remains that if you're going to include everyone else and say it's more than five, you need to place them all under one category, which they apparently aren't except in some situation they're "infinited." Just as dumb to say "it's more than five" if the only thing they share is being screwed by DDD somehow.

But hey, if you want to exclude Bowser because you think I'm trying to be technical, go for it.

 

[Kewkky]

People would want balance among all characters.

Let's take both ends of the tier list and give them the same amazing tech: MK and Ganondorf both get a tech that allows them to combo into any credible move (credible as in, obviously nothing will ever combo into Warlock Punch) they have... MK gets flamed while Ganondorf gets praised. Why is this? It's because MK has already lots of pro's to his character traits, and he can abuse this tech much better than G-Dorf can. G-Dorf, as a character with little to no chance of beating high tiers, will be left this tech to do as he pleases so as to make him a better character than he currently is... MK's a 10/10 (in terms of balance), G-Dorf it a 1/10. This tech gives them 2 points. Now MK is a 12/10 and G-Dorf is a 3/10. MK is now "too good". That's a pretty easy way of seeing how this works.

If G-Dorf would get a grab infinite with the same physics as DDD's dthrow infinite, no one would care either due to how hard it is to grab with him. However, if (and it already has happened) DDD gets the infinite, people will complain about it due to how easy it is to grab as DDD.


It's all about character traits here... Still, this doesn't help at all in deciding why would DDD's current infinite should be banned. Speculating about "what if..."'s doesn't make a move less bannable, or more bannable. "What if ICs could combo into grabs?"... This thought won't make it bannable in our current metagame, only in our imaginations.


The simple "matter of the fact" here is: DDD won't be dying in 2 or 3 hits regularly, so don't bring it up anymore. Stop speculating about impossibilities that will never happen in the game.

There are a few things that don't make sense there. If it is abstract, then I am not repeating the same thing. Even if people wanted MK banned, he is not. Part of brawl is to see "troublesome obstacles" and rise over them. Really the move isn't cheap. I know that you don't get that so I will do my best to explain why.

What are the issues? 4 characters suffer. Even though I don't believe that this is an issue I will do my best to refute it. There are other characters that can beat it. Most of you who want it banned most likely play these characters I presume. Can I ask you a question, not to make a point, but just because I am curious. Why don't you pick up a new character?
If you played a character that didn't suffer against the King, would the problem be solved? I play Marth, Pit, Snake, and Ganondorf. I don't care that Ganon gets hurt, and he gets killed by MK, so I play Snake.

That is the main issue I am hearing right now. Please retort!

Hmm... I'd feel like you're directing this at me, but my mains are characters that don't get chaingrabbed by DDD, and even Falco has trouble chaingrabbing them (Kirby and ZSS), so I'm just here in this discussion trying to point out the same thing you said in your second paragraph.

And the move's only cheap on the characters that get infinited to more than 5-6 dthrows before reaching the other end of Final Destination, for example. Otherwise, it's just as unfair as Snake's utilt makes him seem, or MK's dair as well... They're just tools that are being used to give them the upper edge against over half the cast, which is why they're in the higher tier positions. If they were truly game-breaking (even to a small degree), they would've been heavily considered banning the move.