DDD's standing infinite should not be banned.

[bobson]

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

You can't believe people prefer playable matchups over unplayable ones?

 

[Matador]

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

/thread

You choose one of those 5 fully aware that they get wrecked by D3. Have a competent secondary for these situations or simply main someone else, but don't ***** and moan about the infinite when you clearly put yourself in that situation for choosing that character.

 

[Nanaki]

At least nobody's said 'don't get grabbed' yet.

I could care less if TO's ban it or not. The SBR will never pull a scrubby move like banning something that creates 5 bad matchups, though.

I agree with SoR, SuSa's bad at leaving.

 

[SuSa]

Or we use a standard that bans standing infinites, and only standing infinites. those 5 wouldn't be impossible matches vs D3, wouldn't need to have to pick up a secondary just for a matchup. Then again, you could argue that they should just main their secondary. Because their secondary isn't wrecked by D3.

Oh wait...............nobody works like that, because people continue to main said characters.

Well gosh darn it.

EDIT:
@Nanaki
This is how I read your post:

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

That's how I read your post.

 

[Brinzy]

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

Apparently you didn't see my edit somewhere up there in my longer post with your font color all over it.

Go respond to it.

You gave a standard and I gave you a reason why that standard would crumble to ****.

 

[Matador]

It'd be the same way Diddy needs a secondary for Luigi or Ness needs a secondary for Marth.

Only those 5 matchups are more severe.

 

[swordgard]

G2G sleep johns, will answer to this tommorow.


Why should we ban only standing infinites when they dont even create worst matchups than some chars who have non standing infinites do?

 

[SuSa]

" 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."

Because a standing infinite is unavoidable at any % by said effected characters. 0-deaths can be controlled and can be escaped with proper methods (I have yet to see someone post an unescapable, or uncontrollable 0-death. If you say "don't get grabbed", then I pull the "Don't get grabbed during 0-14% scrub"

The rule for stalling is to keep matches from going over time and...stalling gameplay. This does make an infinite, into a finite. However the infinite (again) can be started at any % and end at said limit every time. Something an 0-death cannot.

/done

Again. Standards. My standard stops the "slippery-slope" argument.

@Swordgard
The goal with banning standing infinites is to create a more competitive gameplay, not to improve matchups.

/simple answer

 

[Inferno3044]

/thread

You choose one of those 5 fully aware that they get wrecked by D3. Have a competent secondary for these situations or simply main someone else, but don't ***** and moan about the infinite when you clearly put yourself in that situation for choosing that character.

You can't just say don't pick any of the 5 characters. Take people like Vex, Xyro, Boss, and Bum. Each of them consist of all the characters able to be a target of D3's infinite. These are all very good players. You think that they should drop their characters because of D3's infinite? I don't think so.

 

[Nanaki]

Or we use a standard that bans standing infinites, and only standing infinites. those 5 wouldn't be impossible matches vs D3, wouldn't need to have to pick up a secondary just for a matchup. Then again, you could argue that they should just main their secondary. Because their secondary isn't wrecked by D3.

Oh wait...............nobody works like that, because people continue to main said characters.

Well gosh darn it.

EDIT:
@Nanaki
This is how I read your post:


That's how I read your post.

Or we could not be scrubs, not use a standard that bans something that doesn't need to be banned for competitive play, and lern2****ingcp. We keep asking for better reasons because the only reason given is 'it brings in more $$', which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game in any way. TO's can ban it, fine. They want money. Anyone who's after a real ruleset for competitive play won't ban it, because it doesn't break the game, and is therefore not ****ing bannable by competitive standards.

And your point is far from un-refutable. We were simply pointing out that you said twice that you were leaving, and failed to leave.

 

[swordgard]

Because a standing infinite is unavoidable at any % by said effected characters. 0-deaths can be controlled and can be escaped with proper methods (I have yet to see someone post an unescapable, or uncontrollable 0-death. If you say "don't get grabbed", then I pull the "Don't get grabbed during 0-14% scrub"

The rule for stalling is to keep matches from going over time and...stalling gameplay. This does make an infinite, into a finite. However the infinite (again) can be started at any % and end at said limit every time. Something an 0-death cannot.

/done

Again. Standards. My standard stops the "slippery-slope" argument.

@Swordgard
The goal with banning standing infinites is to create a more competitive gameplay, not to improve matchups.

/simple answer

Wow, really leaving to sleep soon, so this is gonna be real quick
"Because a standing infinite is unavoidable at any % by said effected characters." A) Circular thinking, thats definition of infinite lol. Chaingrab should be banned because its a chain of grabs omg!
B) Not true, us stages where he cannot do this.
C) You can mash out at low %, reflex does it, why dont you : P

 

[BSP]

You can't just say don't pick any of the 5 characters. Take people like Vex, Xyro, Boss, and Bum. Each of them consist of all the characters able to be a target of D3's infinite. These are all very good players. You think that they should drop their characters because of D3's infinite? I don't think so.

When did he say drop the character? He said have a competent secondary. Having a second doesn't mean u drop your main.

 

[Spelt]

wow, at low percents.
that just leaves mid and high percents.

 

[Nanaki]

You can't just say don't pick any of the 5 characters. Take people like Vex, Xyro, Boss, and Bum. Each of them consist of all the characters able to be a target of D3's infinite. These are all very good players. You think that they should drop their characters because of D3's infinite? I don't think so.

They could just not play them against D3 or in double blinds.

Bum doesn't play Brawl anymore, does he?

 

[Brinzy]

It's unavoidable by two characters in the most common situations as far as I know. Everyone else either has a chance to get out early (and please spare me the whole "I've never seen anyone push their way out" tirade because it's old and it's why there are only two (DK and Bowser) listed) or they can simply avoid certain parts of certain stages to not let this happen to them, AFAIK. Even then, why does the argument to CP not hold here? One can argue that it doesn't directly address the issue that the standing infinite exists, but it certain gives you a winnable fight, something that pretty much everyone who wants this banned is shooting for.d % each time.

Every standing infinite in this game is basically a drawn out combo. That's all it is. I don't see the point in banning a drawn out combo unless it was pretty much gamebreaking, but it isn't.


Also, if the problem is that it's unavoidable, why would you bother with playing that match-up? If you get caught on the receiving end the first time, really, who's at fault?

 

[SuSa]

Or we could not be scrubs, not use a standard that bans something that doesn't need to be banned for competitive play, and lern2****ingcp. We keep asking for better reasons because the only reason given is 'it brings in more $$', which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game in any way. TO's can ban it, fine. They want money. Anyone who's after a real ruleset for competitive play won't ban it, because it doesn't break the game, and is therefore not ****ing bannable by competitive standards.

And your point is far from un-refutable. We were simply pointing out that you said twice that you were leaving, and failed to leave.

It breaks the CP system, therefore can be argued to break gameplay in an uncompetitive fashion.

My standard was to beat your (horrible, and REPEATINGLY OVERUSED) slippery slope argument. "Lololol ban sheik's ftilt"

Please, refute my claim. I came back only because I thought of it. Why do you care if I leave or not?

I just found it funny you only stopped caring after I had posted.

Wow, really leaving to sleep soon, so this is gonna be real quick
"Because a standing infinite is unavoidable at any % by said effected characters." A) Circular thinking, thats definition of infinite lol. Chaingrab should be banned because its a chain of grabs omg!
B) Not true, us stages where he cannot do this.
C) You can mash out at low %, reflex does it, why dont you : P

A) Your point being? My point still stands that it seperates it from a 0-death which is the point of the standard. To seperate it in such a fashion that you can ban that and not fall into the slippery slope.
B) It can be done on all legal stages, and to my knowledge. All banned stages as well! He can perform the infinite on.... I think every stage save the moving platform on Smashville?
C) Same can be said about IC's CG's. But wait.... once you get into what... like 50% (the result of a few attacks and a chaingrab?) then what?

When did he say drop the character? He said have a competent secondary. Having a second doesn't mean u drop your main.

If you need a secondary to cover a well known "**** matchup" you may as well main the character. If you are telling people to "suck it up and go someone else" They may as well be MAINING their secondary because in theory everyone should be going King D3 on you. Thus, you should NEVER be playing your main.

 

[SuSa]

It's unavoidable by two characters in the most common situations as far as I know. Everyone else either has a chance to get out early (and please spare me the whole "I've never seen anyone push their way out" tirade because it's old and it's why there are only two (DK and Bowser) listed) or they can simply avoid certain parts of certain stages to not let this happen to them, AFAIK. Even then, why does the argument to CP not hold here? One can argue that it doesn't directly address the issue that the standing infinite exists, but it certain gives you a winnable fight, something that pretty much everyone who wants this banned is shooting for.d % each time.

Every standing infinite in this game is basically a drawn out combo. That's all it is. I don't see the point in banning a drawn out combo unless it was pretty much gamebreaking, but it isn't.

So now your logic is "don't ban it because you can just CP to a better matchup LOLOLOLOL"

I love that logic.

"It's not gamebreaking, it just means you can't use the character you use for 99% of all of your other gameplay. Friendlies, MM's, WiFi. But at tournament? Sorry. Nope. Suck it up and switch to another character!"

But that logic is better.

What great and competitive reasons to not ban something. Now I bring up something I brought up:

Why is MK's IDC banned?

EDIT:
Lol. Woops. I thought I was editing. :3

 

[Circa]

Wow, really leaving to sleep soon, so this is gonna be real quick
"Because a standing infinite is unavoidable at any % by said effected characters." A) Circular thinking, thats definition of infinite lol. Chaingrab should be banned because its a chain of grabs omg!
B) Not true, us stages where he cannot do this.
C) You can mash out at low %, reflex does it, why dont you : P

There are very few stages that don't allow a full infinite (it will have to stop due to the stage moving or shifting), and by the time you reach the stages that have this shift, you will have already lost your first match to the infinite (although PS1 may be used to stop it to an extent, but thanks to the flaw of stage striking, the D3 main will make sure it's never the first stage played to begin with if he can infinite).

Bum doesn't play Brawl anymore, does he?

I heard before that he was making a return, but I've seen no results to state that he really is. So as of right now I'll say...no? I wish though. D:

 

[RDK]

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

EXACTLY why it should be banned.

Yes, because a Captain Falcon main should abandon Captain Falcon because he gets ***** by Metaknight.

Exactly why he should be banned.

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.

Stop saying dumb and irrelevant things. We don't enforce bans to "benefit" individual matchups. Study up on your competitive gaming, son.

Oh, and Susa, I thought you were fed up with this thread or something? You're bad at leaving. And on top of that none of your internet lulz jokes are funny. They make you sound like a 14 year old.

 

[SuSa]

@SoR
Because there is a standard to ban it, why CP to a favorable matchup if we can let the DDD keep his advantaged matchup but at least have the matchup be playable? I see that as far more competitive.

 

[Matador]

You can't just say don't pick any of the 5 characters. Take people like Vex, Xyro, Boss, and Bum. Each of them consist of all the characters able to be a target of D3's infinite. These are all very good players. You think that they should drop their characters because of D3's infinite? I don't think so.

If they have no problem with the matchup, then more power to them. I hardly believe it's as bad of a matchup as people describe and I can't even properly mash out of the standing infinite.

If the infinite is causing them loses though, they need secondaries.

 

[SuSa]

If you don't think it's a bad matchup because 3 grabs = death, I have a question about what DDD's you've been facing.

Mario's max range.. is what.. equivalent to DDD's grab range?

But I digress, that isn't the issue.

It's what type of DDD can't even land 3 grabs in a match?

 

[Nanaki]

It breaks the CP system, therefore can be argued to break gameplay in an uncompetitive fashion.

My standard was to beat your (horrible, and REPEATINGLY OVERUSED) slippery slope argument. "Lololol ban sheik's ftilt"

Please, refute my claim. I came back only because I thought of it. Why do you care if I leave or not?

I just found it funny you only stopped caring after I had posted.

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

zomgz, look at that. I called you not leaving before you made your 'irrefutable' standard. *GASP!*

Exactly how does it break the CP system? You can't pick your main in the first match because of D3? Amazingly enough, that just makes them a bad character. Holy crap, bad characters in a fighting game. Whatever will we do?

...Not play the character. Unless you know you won't be facing D3.

Does that break the game? No.

I just refuted your claim. You made a standard, the standard doesn't matter because it doesn't make any ****ing sense to be in in the first place. The infinite doesn't need to be banned, and until you prove that it does, your standard is refuted because it's irrelevant.

I don't care if you leave. I actually want you to stay. I like arguing with you, and like you in general. You just said you were leaving twice, and then didn't. I (and SoR) pointed that out.

...I'm having deja vu at the end of this post.

 

[BentoBox]

The CP system is infallible only when you don't know your opponent. If I were to fight Bum, I wouldn't have to think twice about who to blind pick.

Balanced Brawl <3

 

[Matador]

If you don't think it's a bad matchup because 3 grabs = death, I have a question about what DDD's you've been facing.

Mario's max range.. is what.. equivalent to DDD's grab range?

But I digress, that isn't the issue.

It's what type of DDD can't even land 3 grabs in a match?

My post was regarding the idea that the matchup is impossible to win.

It's extremely difficult and lopsided, but I've won the matchup many times before when the D3 is using the infinite or on a walkoff/stage with walls.

 

[Brinzy]

So now your logic is "don't ban it because you can just CP to a better matchup LOLOLOLOL"

I love that logic.

"It's not gamebreaking, it just means you can't use the character you use for 99% of all of your other gameplay. Friendlies, MM's, WiFi. But at tournament? Sorry. Nope. Suck it up and switch to another character!"

But that logic is better.

What great and competitive reasons to not ban something. Now I bring up something I brought up:

Why is MK's IDC banned?

EDIT:
Lol. Woops. I thought I was editing. :3

Uh, no. That's not addressing the issue, for certain, but that's not my logic. That's simply the best way to get around the ****ing thing and that was my suggestion. My logic was not "don't ban it because you can CP it." My logic is don't ban it until you come up with good criteria to ban it while not banning the other stuff, because for all the separation that you've tried to do with that and 0-deaths, you somehow failed to keep it completely away from 0-deaths. It being able to happen at any % is a pretty weak separation anyway, because why would I wait to do this to you at 150%? Hell, 100%?

The biggest difference between 0-deaths and SIs are that these SIs are from DDD's grab and 0-deaths have a much stricter window and are from something that's not so simple to get started. You even stated yourself that 0-deaths are a result from SIs, so how exactly are they different enough to warrant different criteria?

MK's IDC is banned because there's no way to counter it since everyone is vulnerable to it. This is not the same as DDD grabbing TWO characters at any % for what is effectively a combo.

 

[SuSa]

Before SWF crapped out on me:
You can't use your main first, or third (assuming you win on your CP).
Therefore, you can't use your main.
Therefore, you don't bother going to tournaments.
Therefore, the tournament scene dies.
At least in Melee I saw people using Mewtwo *looks over to Taj*
But let's not make this a Melee argument.... Brawl and Melee are different games.

So... you're only reason for the infinite NOT to be banned is now "because it isn't needed". Then we will get nowhere, and TO's will just continue to ban it to make more money. We've reached equal ground.


@Above post
SI's also come from Marth vs Ness/Lucas, except there is very little more they can do about it. 0-Deaths can be a result from SI's, however are not the same thing. They have very strict %'s at which they can be started at. They have very specific scenario's that must happen. Most can even be SDI'd out of. DDD can get a grab at ANY % at almost ANYWHERE. 0-Deaths (that aren't an SI) work NOTHING like that.

Everyone is vulnerable to WHAT? An attack that does less then 20%? How is that somehow more bannable then an attack that can do over 200% and lead to death?

I would ban the one that effects 1 character over one that honestly means very little in every matchup (GLHF using down-B vs Mario. Cape that **** <3 gg)

EDIT:
SI's = bannable
0-Deaths that AREN'T SI's = not bannable

 

[RDK]

Susa, are you seriously that dense? IDC overcentralizes. D3's infinite works on a handful of characters.

Also, easy solution to the "main" problem: switch mains. Or is that too difficult a process? I'll break it down for you. Try selecting a different box at the character select screen next time you play.

 

[Xebenkeck]

Less we all forget the 5 chars, can plank thier ***** off(especially samus), stay near the edge, or camp on a small platform.


Just Saying.

 

[Brinzy]

@SoR
Because there is a standard to ban it, why CP to a favorable matchup if we can let the DDD keep his advantaged matchup but at least have the matchup be playable? I see that as far more competitive.

You're presenting to me the idea that it's more competitive to have two more matchups where DDD still has a sizable advantage than it is to have people to do exactly what you're supposed to do in tournaments and make matchups as favorable for you as possible? It's one thing to believe that this should be banned to get two matchups going, but you're bull****ting me if you think that's adding more competitive value than CPing into a fight that's in your favor since you're obviously trying to swing things in your favor and compete even more.

 

[BSP]

Less we all forget the 5 chars, can plank thier ***** off(especially samus), stay near the edge, or camp on a small platform.


Just Saying.

or the player could just not pick an infinitable character.

 

[SuSa]

Susa, are you seriously that dense? IDC overcentralizes. D3's infinite works on a handful of characters.

Also, easy solution to the "main" problem: switch mains. Or is that too difficult a process? I'll break it down for you. Try selecting a different box at the character select screen next time you play.

How so? We basically banned it on sight.

Also if it does overcentralize gameplay. People should go Mario. Cape down-B and MK dies? OH**** OH JESUS. MARIO FOR MK COUNTER.

Oh wait......

Ok, so that brings me to the worsening community. If overcentralizing means "go this char. or lose" how is "don't go this char." that much different?

Easier solution to the main problem:
Find that character below Kirby, but above King Dedede. His name should be Meta Knight. Place your character selector over him and press A.

Oh wait, logic like that doesn't work.

Less we all forget the 5 chars, can plank thier ***** off(especially samus), stay near the edge, or camp on a small platform.


Just Saying.

Samus has to touch the stage after 3 zairs. You can steal the ledge from Mario with proper timing (and it's rather easy) and he's ****ed. Get lead, don't approach Luigi. Profit? DK... can plank? He just gets dtilted and it's GG.

The infinite can happen on even BF platforms AFAIK. Also how would you fight from a platform. D3 has utilt (which gives invincibility frames on contact) what do the 5 characters have?

Poor solutions.

You're presenting to me the idea that it's more competitive to have two more matchups where DDD still has a sizable advantage than it is to have people to do exactly what you're supposed to do in tournaments and make matchups as favorable for you as possible? It's one thing to believe that this should be banned to get two matchups going, but you're bull****ting me if you think that's adding more competitive value than CPing into a fight that's in your favor since you're obviously trying to swing things in your favor and compete even more.

4 matchups. I don't get why everyone keeps thinking he only infinites 2 characters.


Anti-Ban:
Go Meta Knight.

Me:
Okay, let's see people actually do that.

/sick of this thread, it's going in circles.

 

[Brinzy]

@Above post
SI's also come from Marth vs Ness/Lucas, except there is very little more they can do about it. 0-Deaths can be a result from SI's, however are not the same thing. They have very strict %'s at which they can be started at. They have very specific scenario's that must happen. Most can even be SDI'd out of. DDD can get a grab at ANY % at almost ANYWHERE. 0-Deaths (that aren't an SI) work NOTHING like that.

Everyone is vulnerable to WHAT? An attack that does less then 20%? How is that somehow more bannable then an attack that can do over 200% and lead to death?

I would ban the one that effects 1 character over one that honestly means very little in every matchup (GLHF using down-B vs Mario. Cape that **** <3 gg)

Thanks for repeating the "can be, are not the same thing" statement, because I'm pretty sure that post you were replying to established that somewhere in there.

So basically, DDD can get his thing going easier than 0-deaths in general, so ban it. lol, good one man.

Everyone is vulnerable to IDC because you have no feasible way to punish it. How in the hell would you be able to punish IDC consistently, if at all? If you think that something totally nonpunishable is not as deserving of banishment as something that can do over 200% and lead to death (and **** the semantics you're running with here, that is basically a 0-death), you're either stupid or... there's no other alternative. You're just stupid.

No offense because I still see you as a smart person, but seriously?


EDIT: 4 matchups? DK and Bowser. Who the hell else? Please don't mention Mario, Luigi and Samus, because as improbable as it may be for them to break out at certain %s, it's not impossible to break ou. Also, don't mention anyone who has to be at a certain % and/or in a certain place because that would not fall under everything you've been talking about.

 

[SuSa]

0-deaths have limits DDD's SI doesn't. Are you so dense that you cannot see that? It's NOT LIMITED.

Uhm. How fast does the slash come out again on re-appearence? Do you happen to have the frame data? Also can it hit you on the ledge? Also is it possible to go up (eg: onto a platform) from IDC? If not, you can ****ing avoid it.

1. It's not like down-B has frame 1 startup
2. It's also not like down-B has no endlag.

It's punishable SOMEWHERE.

Again, we just banned it on sight. Something I find laughable. It has frames of cool down and startup, therefore it is punishable. So it's a down-B that can switch directions and the timing can be varied on it? It just so happens to have a long period of invincibility (let's ban Marth's grounded up-B! The invincibility frames are stupid and unpunishable. Easily a 0-death) (Okay, so that last statement was trolling....)

EG:
If hitbox is slower then 10 frames, you can shield it on reaction. Shield it, punish him. He has cooldown on the attack.

 

[Xebenkeck]

or the player could just not pick an infinitable character.

What if you get blind picked?

As stupid as the statagy sounds it works fairly well. I had to learn it vs. Marth. Ness has projectiles to make marth come near,i i grab him, throw him off, gimp his average recovery, it's hard but doable.

I'm sure these characters can do it as well. Mario has reallly good gimping, samus can projectile spam, and she has one of the better planks in the game. Just to say a few.

Susa, i didn't mean they are going to win doing them. Samus doesn't have to go above the the stage, she can drop down and DJ back up, and her uair auto-cancels so she can get onto the stage by using it and following up with something to push D3 away. But even so, i suggested fighting on the edge as a way to not ge infinated/0-death, not as a mean to win the whole match. It's merely a statagy to save yourself from 1 grab=death.

Mario, luigi, can't do much indeed, but like i said the chances are better of winning if you stay near the edge then staying where you can be 0-death'd

 

[RDK]

Maybe it wouldn't go in circles if you stopped for a minute to actually read your posts. How is your response to me even a response? None of what you said was even remotely intelligent.

Mario as a counter to MK? And then you ask me the difference between "Play this character or lose" and "Don't play this character because he generally sucks"? Have you ever participated in a counterpick before?

Just stop while you're ahead, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Nanaki]

Before SWF crapped out on me:
You can't use your main first, or third (assuming you win on your CP).
Therefore, you can't use your main.

Waaah, my 'main' isn't a top tier character and I can't win tournaments with him! Fix it for me or I quit!

It's OK for characters to be bad. Trust me. I'm a doctor.

Therefore, you don't bother going to tournaments.
Therefore, the tournament scene dies.

DK, Bowser, Mario, Luigi, and Samus mains quitting isn't going to kill the tournament scene. Those guys are a tiny portion of the Brawl tourney population. Besides, most of them wouldn't quit anyway.

At least in Melee I saw people using Mewtwo *looks over to Taj*
But let's not make this a Melee argument.... Brawl and Melee are different games.

The 'let's not make this a melee argument' john isn't going to work when you just gave a Melee example. Don't bring it up to support yourself if you're not going to let me respond to it. You just don't want me to respond to it because you know that there were terrible matchups and broken crap in that game too, but it didn't overcentralize anything and didn't result in bans. And the game's tournament scene was (and still is) huge.

So... you're only reason for the infinite NOT to be banned is now "because it isn't needed". Then we will get nowhere, and TO's will just continue to ban it to make more money. We've reached equal ground.

Didn't we know that all along? This has all been pointless spam.

Bad thread is bad.

Edit:

Ok, so that brings me to the worsening community. If overcentralizing means "go this char. or lose" how is "don't go this char." that much different?

...you can't be serious here.

 

[BSP]

What if you get blind picked?

That would be the player's fault IMO, for picking a character with that kind of weakness and knowing it could happen.

Quote thing messed up.

 

[RDK]

0-deaths have limits DDD's SI doesn't. Are you so dense that you cannot see that? It's NOT LIMITED.

Wow, it just gets worse and worse. Are you not aware of the cap? In practice, how is his standing infinite any different than a 0-death?

 

[Brinzy]

0-deaths have limits DDD's SI doesn't. Are you so dense that you cannot see that? It's NOT LIMITED.

Uhm. How fast does the slash come out again on re-appearence. Do you happen to have the frame data? Also can it hit you on the ledge? Also is it possible to go up (eg: onto a platform) from IDC? If not, you can ****ing avoid it.

1. It's not like down-B has frame 1 startup
2. It's also not like down-B has no endlag.

It's punishable SOMEWHERE.

It's not limited? Really? In what tournament is it not limited? Oh **** look, it's limited. Who cares if it can happen at 0% or 15% or 70% or 120% or whatever the hell else? It's STILL A COMBO. It is STILL LIMITED. You have yet to deny this or even acknowledge that this has been said.

EDIT: Actually, you did acknowledge once that it had limitations placed upon it, so why you're going back to this is totally beyond me.

That's stupid logic you've got going about the IDC. The funny part is that you can avoid the ledge (or stay by there anyway) to avoid getting infinited, so that really didn't do **** for your argument.

And that's nice if you can avoid it and if it has some lag somewhere. The player is perfectly capable of reappearing in a safe spot. Guess what else you can avoid?

But before you hit in your automatic, redundant counter to "don't get grabbed", remember that DDD's grab also can be avoided in a number of ways and it has lag, so once again, you've failed to separate that from the IDC, and thus your whole tirade about why this is possibly worse than the IDC is fail.