DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[SuSa]

EIDI doesn't exist.

I have yet to ever see it work, the people simply break out in a certain frame of Marth's grab that makes them break out just barely further, making them miss the grab. In the "instructional video" I saw it work maybe 2 out of 20 times? I didn't bother doing frame analysis on it.

The more you know!

"Characters who are otherwise unviable"
"Except maybe DK"
"Who used to be 8 spots higher"
"But now lacks representation"
"Because of the infinite"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Until someone gives me a pro for not banning the move, I'm going to continue arguing for Pro-Ban (although I'm neutral on the matter because it doesn't effect me)

Ways to nerf Snakes ftilt:
Learn to DI inside of him (if you even suspect you are going to be hit)
If not that close, learn to hold away so the second hit misses you.

Profitt?

If the characters are so unviable and ****ty anyways, regardless of the infinite ban or not. Then why is it such a problem? The main should still lose, and it's extra money in the Top3's pocket.

 

[Nanaki]

We should totally ban Sheik using her chain against Ganon. It makes the matchup unwinnable and it's super easy to do.

Discuss.

 

[SuSa]

Approach from above and you actually have a chance to get around it if you spam down-B and aren't hit by the tip of the chain. (It's really hard to use the Chain like you would if it were grounded, which can halt grounded approaches and SH'd approaches)

Discuss on how Ganon mains just suck.

 

[BSP]

shield and grab the down b? point being: he could get punished easily


edit: nevermind

 

[Nanaki]

Approach from above and you actually have a chance to get around it if you spam down-B and aren't hit by the tip of the chain. (It's really hard to use the Chain like you would if it were grounded, which can halt grounded approaches and SH'd approaches)

Discuss on how Ganon mains just suck.

He'd be slightly more viable if he didn't have a 100-0 because of one move...right?

...Nah, I can't back that up. He's not viable no matter how you slice it.

 

[SuSa]

shield and grab the down b? point being: he could get punished easily

Holy ****, Sheik can shield from chain?

Wait a second..................

He'd be slightly more viable if he didn't have a 100-0 because of one move...right?

...Nah, I can't back that up. He's not viable no matter how you slice it.

You mean he'd be viable if IC's couldn't grab every single move he has? (It's not the desynch'd blizzards he can't get around. He just can't attack them. Ever.)

 

[Spelt]

doesn't ganon have 2 100:0 matchups?

 

[SuSa]

Sheik/IC's.

I don't believe the Sheik matchup.

Also I don't believe any of their ****ing ratios.

But I'm biased as ****.

 

[Spelt]

i thought olimar was also 100:0? D:
maybe i'm just crazy.

 

[pizzapie7]

My reasoning is that if it doesn't break the game it shouldn't be banned.

IDC breaks the game, therefore it's banned.
DDDs infinite only breaks 2 tourney-viable character matchups (Luigi and DK), so I don't think there is enough of a reason to ban it. The same reasoning with the ICs grab/Sheik's chain. They completely break (ICs at least, not really familiar with the Sheik matchup as much) ONE matchup, but that ONE matchup is a ****ty character who doesn't really have a place in competitive play anyway, so it doesn't really matter. And there are other characters where it can be used just fine.

 

[swordgard]

EIDI doesn't exist.

I have yet to ever see it work, the people simply break out in a certain frame of Marth's grab that makes them break out just barely further, making them miss the grab. In the "instructional video" I saw it work maybe 2 out of 20 times? I didn't bother doing frame analysis on it.

The more you know!

"Characters who are otherwise unviable"
"Except maybe DK"
"Who used to be 8 spots higher"
"But now lacks representation"
"Because of the infinite"

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Until someone gives me a pro for not banning the move, I'm going to continue arguing for Pro-Ban (although I'm neutral on the matter because it doesn't effect me)

Ways to nerf Snakes ftilt:
Learn to DI inside of him (if you even suspect you are going to be hit)
If not that close, learn to hold away so the second hit misses you.

Profitt?

If the characters are so unviable and ****ty anyways, regardless of the infinite ban or not. Then why is it such a problem? The main should still lose, and it's extra money in the Top3's pocket.

I agree with EIDI though, its a bit iffy lol. But that was not the point.


Simply because we do not ban stuff to make the game slightly more balanced every time, or else we have to start banning lots of individual moves and have to set a line as to where it is broken and overcentralizing. DK having suddenly a very bad matchup doesnt mean we should remove that bad matchup. Our job is not to artificially remove these bad matchups. To have such a ban warranted, the game would have to degenerate to the point where it is play D3 or lose. Otherwise it is pretty legit, i remember zss having an infinite on rob and near infinite(0 to death) on a couple of other characters. Where is the line for what is too good and when it isnt. 0 to death? 0 to 80%? 0 to 70%?




Why not start trying to ban , i dunnnow, metaknight? He has so many good moves, isnt he good enough to be banned while D3s infinite is? Im pretty sure metaknight alone makes more damage due to his popularity than those infinites your trying to ban.




Just so you know, im anti ban for MK too, but MK has a case, this does not. Wont get banned, not as long as we got the SBR.


Just so you guys know, MK/marth are worst matchup for luigi than d3.

 

[Nanaki]

The Sheik one might not be 100:0, but it's at best 90:10. IC's is way worse though. That one's truly 100:0.

Speaking of messed up ratios, I don't believe most of Pit's. Those guys seriously overestimate their main, and seem to just go '50:50' a lot because they just doesn't know.

Since this got derailed massively, wouldn't Pika-Fox at least be pretty bannable by the same standard?

 

[Commander_Beef]

SuSa said it. People ban it because it pisses people off enough that they might get a few more entrants if they do and very little is lost by doing so.

I can't believe it's normally banned in most tournaments just because of people's emotions -_-.

 

[Brinzy]

If the characters are so unviable and ****ty anyways, regardless of the infinite ban or not. Then why is it such a problem? The main should still lose, and it's extra money in the Top3's pocket.

Or the main will pick up another character and get better at the game and we have better players.

I couldn't care less about proving whether or not this should or shouldn't be banned because I'm not idiot enough to use a nonviable character in a tournament that I'm trying to win in anyway. (Before some random person chimes in, I main Zelda/Sheik and I believe they are viable.) If it's banned at a tournament, I'll participate. If it's not, I'll participate. If I decided to bring my DK out in a tournament where it wasn't banned, I would simply accept the possibility of this happening.

Since this got derailed massively, wouldn't Pika-Fox at least be pretty bannable by the same standard?

B-b-b-but it's not as devastating so there!

 

[SuSa]

My point being is I don't give 10 ****s if the SBR bans it.

TO's will continue to do so because it puts money in their pockets and attracts more players, and nobody really gives a **** except for arguing against it on SWF. If you really dislike it, go to your local tourney and keep *****ing about it being scrubby or just don't go to the tourney because of it. If people stop going because of the rule, that detracts from the purpose of adding it in.

/case and point. I'm done with this thread

EDIT:
lololololol Zelda being viable. You made my day.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Don't choose a character who can get infinited in the first place. This is not rocket science, people.

Yes because a Mario main should abandon Mario because he gets infinited.

EXACTLY why it should be banned.

 

[Brinzy]

lololol Zelda being worst in the game.

Good story, would read again.

 

[SuSa]

Nah, after facing a Zelda in tourney.

She's at least Bottom 5, but no longer the worst.

He reinstated the fact in my mind "Link really, really sucks. Even if Zelda sucks."

 

[Big O]

I find it funny that instead of actually listing benefits the ban anti-ban side goes straight to slippery slope arguements. Bu-bu-but then you have to ban _____ to make X vs. Y fair doesn't really matter since this topic is about D3's infinite and nothing more.

Please tell me what good things unbanning it accomplishes for either the metagame, the quality of the competitive ruleset, or tournament attendance. Allowing them based on the opinion that the affected characters should tough it out is not a pro. Leaving the greatest example of why secondaries are a good idea is not a pro (it is more accurately the greatest example of how the current CP system is flawed). Saying that banning something to improve the game (which ultimately is the true purpose of banning anything in competitive play) is stupid is not a pro. Refrain from slippery slope bu-bu-but now you gotta balance xyz apocalypses please.

 

[swordgard]

Yes because a Mario main should abandon Mario because he gets infinited.

EXACTLY why it should be banned.

Because ganon mains should abandon him because he has a negative matchup versus 99% of the cast.



Exactly why everyone else should be banned.


See what i did there?



Just because it annoys some player, doesnt mean we should ban it. We can ban it, but by competitive standards it would actually be very very bad. D3=/=worst matchup for mario. Marth is just as bad if not worst. Ban marth? You can always call double blind pick and force people into using D3 and cp em first turn, if you dont call double blind pick its your fault. Get chars which can cp d3, and always call double blind pick.

 

[Brinzy]

That's nice, SuSa.

Still has nothing to do with Down B.

(Of course Zelda is nonviable. There's a reason I said Zelda/Sheik.)

 

[swordgard]

I find it funny that instead of actually listing benefits the ban anti-ban side goes straight to slippery slope arguements. Bu-bu-but then you have to ban _____ to make X vs. Y fair doesn't really matter since this topic is about D3's infinite and nothing more.

Please tell me what good things unbanning it accomplishes for either the metagame, the quality of the competitive ruleset, or tournament attendance. Allowing them based on the opinion that the affected characters should tough it out is not a pro. Leaving the greatest example of why secondaries are a good idea is not a pro (it is more accurately the greatest example of how the current CP system is flawed). Saying that banning something to improve the game (which ultimately is the true purpose of banning anything in competitive play) is stupid is not a pro. Refrain from slippery slope bu-bu-but now you gotta balance xyz apocalypses please.

Slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when you assume it will go on to greater proportions.
AKA banning infinite, then something slightly worst, until only the worst chars are left.

If we do ban infinite for a set criteria, then everything which goes by it should also be banned, thats not slippery slope, thats being consistant.

 

[SuSa]

Except in a few particular matchups, why should you ever down-B as Sheik?

Big O, I like your post.

EDIT:
Why should we have a standard to ban things? That creates a mess. If we find it detrimental to gameplay, the ban can be enforced easily, and it makes no significant change to anything, I see no reason not to ban it. Banning Sheik's ftilt is extremely detrimental to gameplay, and makes a significant change in a majority of matchups.

AKA:
You can't find criteria to ban something. MK's IDC was never used in tournaments to truly see it's effects. Theorycraft all you ****ing want, that ban was unwarranted. Why did we ban it? "B-B-B-B-Because it can be used for stalling"

Then ****ing call a judge if he uses it for more then 5-10 seconds and have the judge watch the match.

"It creates an unpunishable approach"
Down-B seems pretty punishable to me...

Or am I misunderstanding why we banned IDC?

NOW I'm done with this thread. Have any beefs with me or want to discuss something, send me a visitor message.

 

[swordgard]

Except in a few particular matchups, why should you ever down-B as Sheik?

Big O, I like your post.

EDIT:
Why should we have a standard to ban things? That creates a mess. If we find it detrimental to gameplay, the ban can be enforced easily, and it makes no significant change to anything, I see no reason not to ban it. Banning Sheik's ftilt is extremely detrimental to gameplay, and makes a significant change in a majority of matchups.

NOW I'm done with this thread. Have any beefs with me or want to discuss something, send me a visitor message.

Why should we have a standard to ban things?!??!


EDIT: Dont blame the banning of the infinite stall cape on us, it is completely unrelated. It is true that we did not let it go out in the wild, but it can be easily seen as broken due to the fact that it DOES create overcentralization, and thats the criteria we got for most of our bans right now. Either creates forced overcentralization or turns the game into pure randomness where the players have no control over whats happening, only the machine does.


Fact is, you cant answer to this, see you later susa.

You do realize that without a standard then anyone can convince anyone anything is broken and detrimental. Maybe I see falcons knee as detrimental to the gameplay due to how good it is. Compared to what? Well, i dont know, say er...taunting. You cant say it shouldnt be banned due to it not being nearly as good as to what it needs to be broken, we have no standard. I make of it whatever i want.


Thats not how it works, you need a standard.

 

[Spelt]

I find it funny that instead of actually listing benefits the ban anti-ban side goes straight to slippery slope arguements. Bu-bu-but then you have to ban _____ to make X vs. Y fair doesn't really matter since this topic is about D3's infinite and nothing more.

slippery slope arguments were always stupid.
waking up at 7:30 instead of 7 one days doesn't mean you're going to wake up at 8 the next.
not getting on the internet for a day doesn't mean you're going to ban it from your life completely.
etc.
it's just a last ditch effort theory because it somewhat holds up in real life.
i guess people don't realize this is a game though.

 

[Big O]

Slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when you assume it will go on to greater proportions.
AKA banning infinite, then something slightly worst, until only the worst chars are left.

If we do ban infinite for a set criteria, then everything which goes by it should also be banned, thats not slippery slope, thats being consistant.

You still didn't mention any benefits at all to unbanning it, just that people can't argue fallacy if it adhered to some "ban checklist"...

 

[SuSa]

Good luck getting a majority of smash players to agree with you.

Setting standards leads to "well if we ban x we gotta ban y and z" although nobody sees y and z as problems, so we never ban x.

By never banning x, just because the only standards we can find for it ban two unrelated things is rather stupid.

EDIT:
**** this:

Unless a character has a STANDING INFINITE (Marth's death grab, DDD's infinite) that takes place by SIMPLY STANDING THERE. That is the standard.

Pikachu's dthrow, not an infinite
Sheik's ftilt, not an infinite
Marth, doesn't have a ****ing infinite

Want me to call more bull**** on other bull**** people have spewed?

STANDING INFINITE != 0--->DEATH It is simply a result

How's that for a standard? Standard being "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite"

"BUT BUT BUT"

Yep. I can already see me getting flamed for this post. Why? Because people relate standing infinite to 0-death to other bul****. It's different. The standard is simple, but people are *****es. Why? Because they expect more out of a standard.

AFAIK, those are the only 2 standing infinites in the game. Also I think Marth's deathgrab inches him forward ever so slightly to the ledge. Therefore that may not even fall under the standard.

 

[Noobicidal]

Discuss on how Ganon mains just suck.

; ;

I suppose seppuku is my only option. Now where is my tantō...

 

[swordgard]

You still didn't mention any benefits at all to unbanning it, just that people can't argue fallacy if it adhered to some "ban checklist"...

Il answer a bit after, just saying.



Wheres your im leaving now susa XD

 

[Nanaki]

Slippery slope argument is only a fallacy when you assume it will go on to greater proportions.
AKA banning infinite, then something slightly worst, until only the worst chars are left.

If we do ban infinite for a set criteria, then everything which goes by it should also be banned, thats not slippery slope, thats being consistant.

Yup.

Good luck getting a majority of smash players to agree with you.

Setting standards leads to "well if we ban x we gotta ban y and z" although nobody sees y and z as problems, so we never ban x.

By never banning x, just because the only standards we can find for it ban two unrelated things is rather stupid.

Unless a character has a STANDING INFINITE (Marth's death grab, DDD's infinite) that takes place by SIMPLY STANDING THERE. That is the standard.

Pikachu's dthrow, not an infinite
Sheik's ftilt, not an infinite
Marth, doesn't have a ****ing infinite

Want me to call more bull**** on other bull**** people have spewed?

STANDING INFINITE != 0--->DEATH It is simply a result

How's that for a standard? Standard being "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite"

"BUT BUT BUT"

Yep. I can already see me getting flamed for this post.

AFAIK, those are the only 2 standing infinites in the game. Also I think Marth's deathgrab inches him forward ever so slightly to the ledge. Therefore that may not even fall under the standard.

...what makes a standing infinite worse than a 0-death competitively besides stalling?

You will never be done with this thread. It has consumed you.

 

[Brinzy]

Please tell me what good things unbanning it accomplishes for either the metagame, the quality of the competitive ruleset, or tournament attendance.

Metagame: People start counterpicking more and start using more characters along with their mains who have one, ONE, ONE single fight where the chance to get a complete stock removed with one mistake is there for the whole match (so they're still perfectly usable for every other matchup that the player chooses to use them in). This is exactly what 10:90 and 20:80 fights do in pretty much every game in existence. Nobody will seriously play the matches unless they are just that die hard; more will opt to find a new character so they can still compete. The minority of that group are the ones who actually quit the whole game because they have ONE fight where something like in DDD's case happens.

Quality of the competitive ruleset: As we know, you make your own rules. I could argue that leaving it unbanned would be a wake-up call for people to not play the fight anyway but I don't care. People can try and claim slippery slope here, but if you ban this, you obviously have to give a reason for it to be banned, and yes, if someone does get CG'd by Pikachu in tournament they will cry out to your decision to ban the DDD thing but not this, so you cannot separate the other CGs from this one if you're talking about banning things in tournaments.

There are no other arguments here that I can see, but "let's ban this" and trying to leave off everything else is just as bad.

Tournament attendance: Likely would improve slightly, and by slightly, I mean so little that you might not even tell the difference. A lot of the players of these characters have secondaries (possibly for this very reason but that's not important) and they still compete to this day. A lot of the people that would quit their character or this game over one horrible fight are not going to be won back by an official ban because they're either long gone or they're at tournaments that already banned the thing.

So for the most part: making it an official ban may improve the scene in a few ways but leaving it banned will force people to CP, which also improves the scene. I would like some hard data on this.




" How's that for a standard? Standard being "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite""

So hi, I went to a tournament and I got 0 -> death'd over and over by a CG, or basically a long combo, and it was allowed, but this other guy got DQ'd because he tried a standing infinite to create a 0 -> death situation. I don't get why this is; they both started and there's no way out in both situations, but just because one is "standing" and the other isn't, there's a big difference even though they accomplish the same thing. I mean, I totally don't get that, isn't there a rule against stalling, which already covers that redundant rule of "it has to be a ****ing standing infinite", since it then has to become finite and then you kill? Isn't that also a long combo? Hey wait, aren't all 0-deaths long combos? I don't understand why ban one thing and not the other!



That is why ban criteria is necessary, unless you just want to tell everyone who ever gets knocked out by this stuff, "no, that's tough look, it has to be a STANDING infinite to get them a DQ, otherwise 0-death away."

 

[SuSa]

Yup.



...what makes a standing infinite worse than a 0-death competitively besides stalling?

You will never be done with this thread. It has consumed you.

Because it is a standing infinite, not an 0-death.

To be honest, you can generally avoid a scenario where you will be 0-deathed. Simply by positioning yourself on a certain part of the stage, or not letting your opponent reach a certain point. (EG: Sheik needs proper % on you + proper decay on ftilt)

Pikachu's dthrow on certain characters:
1) Must grab during certain (usually low %'s)
2) For him to be able to KO you out of it, you need to be grabbed at the worst possible position for you.
3) If you get death grabbed at 15-20%, camp at the edge of the stage so he can't fthrow/dthrow CG you to be able to set it up

What do DDD/Marth need? A grab....(almost) anywhere...at any %

My point, is if you need a STANDARD. The STANDARD is:
"Standing Infinite is different then 0-Death. Ban Standing Infinites, 0-Deaths stay.

 

[swordgard]

Because it is a standing infinite, not an 0-death.

To be honest, you can generally avoid a scenario where you will be 0-deathed. Simply by positioning yourself on a certain part of the stage, or not letting your opponent reach a certain point. (EG: Sheik needs proper % on you + proper decay on ftilt)

What do DDD/Marth need? A grab....

You can still mash out. Learn to mash out.

 

[Spelt]

What do DDD/Marth need? A grab....(almost) anywhere...at any %

Same with ice climbers. :/

 

[SuSa]

Tell me the amount of people who have successfully done that, so far that is **** great theorycrafting. But again, standing infinites can be started at ANY %. 0-Deaths cannot. (I had the grab formula somewhere, and it's humanly possible to mash out at pretty high %'s, but I've RARELY seen someone mash out after 1 of DDD's pummels, when buffered, at any % above 60%. Which is what... 2 CG's across a stage for him?

Also DDD can start it at any %, including those past your ability to humanly mash out. Thus is can be used for stalling purposes.

He can also CG you to get you higher (so it is harder to mash out), then pummel once and start the infinite.

EDIT:
@spelt
Get rid of Nana.... no more 0-death. Hey look, you can control it!

EDIT:
It is theoretically possible to break out of IC's infinite at ANY % before they are able to kill you. Do people do that at the highest levels of play? **** no they don't. So please, don't use this whole "mash out" bull****.

 

[Circa]

SuSa, Big O, I ****ing love you.

And I still really see no pros to this argument. All you've basically said is that with the infinite, it means more counter-picking than without. And that's only one pro as opposed to a decent-sized list of cons (and even that's not exactly a pro, considering what extensive CP'ing could eventually lead to (OH SHI- SLIPPERY SLOPE!)).

 

[Spelt]

The ice climbers can also control when nana dies to an extent. :/
and only at killing percent.
which is on average 100%? maybe more?
unless they get gimped, but yeah, i don't see that happening...
even wario and MK get grabbed once in awhile.
and ICs even have definite setups into their grabs with desynchs


EDIT: not like nana's running around rapidly until the opponent gets grabbed.

 

[SuSa]

BUT D00D you can mash out!

/anti-ban sentiment

(It's actually relatively easy for many characters to seperate the Ice Climbers, then beat on Nana til she dies or is at a much higher % then Popo. However the fact you CAN get rid of it, unlike DDD's and Marth's already makes it different. Now do you see how my standard works?)
EDIT:
Wow, a standard that is easy to refer to and holds true? It can't be! It don exits!

 

[Brinzy]

I'm not about to argue this crap again for the, what, sixth time now. There's no ****ing point because it's up to the TOs.

No more arguing from me about this particular issue. Whether it's a good thing or bad thing or whatever is up for discussion, but in the end, even if the SBR decided to ban it, it would still be out of their hands if a TO decided to let it be legal.


SuSa you're bad at leaving.

 

[SuSa]

****, SuSa found something that I can't refute. I'm going to drop the debate and ask SuSa why he didn't leave before he thought of his argument.

That's how I read your post. Anti-Ban keeps asking for better reasons, or even a standard. So that's what I gave.